PDA

View Full Version : How to tell a right wing drongo.



Davidflude
28-02-2008, 10:00 PM
I think that it is time to publish a list of characteristics of right wing drongos.

Please note that I do not mean those members of the right who have well considered views (for example the late Santamaria) that even if you disagree with them you can still respect their views. I also feel we should confine ourselves to Australian ones and not US or Pom ones.

just the criteria not names, why?

First criteria "right wing drongos criticise every one else but threaten to sue if anyone gives some back. It sounds like our cricketers when some dreadful opponents sledge them back.

Second criteria "right wing drongos tend not to understand oligopolies and never complain about oligopoly pricing, even though the marketplace cannot
force down prices.

that is a start. Now it is up to everyone else.

Capablanca-Fan
28-02-2008, 10:53 PM
Please note that I do not mean those members of the right who have well considered views (for example the late Santamaria) that even if you disagree with them you can still respect their views. I also feel we should confine ourselves to Australian ones and not US or Pom ones.
Santamaria was a social conservative but hardly an economic right winger. So you might want to define what sort of right wing you mean, as per the political compass thread.


First criteria "right wing drongos criticise every one else but threaten to sue if anyone gives some back. It sounds like our cricketers when some dreadful opponents sledge them back.
The trial lawyers in America are most strongly supported by the Democrats, i.e. the Left!


Second criteria "right wing drongos tend not to understand oligopolies and never complain about oligopoly pricing, even though the marketplace cannot force down prices.
When has the government ever done better? When it forces down prices, the inevitable result is shortages. This has been the case for thousands of years, it happened with petrol in the 1970s, and is happening right now with Australian water.

TheJoker
29-02-2008, 08:39 AM
The trial lawyers in America are most strongly supported by the Democrats, i.e. the Left!

David did ask that you restrict your comments to Australia.

TheJoker
29-02-2008, 09:08 AM
When has the government ever done better?

Recently, cardboard boxes i.e. Vishy/Amcor cartel.

You seem to be confused about the difference between setting artificial price controls (such as limits on profit margins), and the need to regulate against collusive behaviour leading to oligopolistic pricing cartels.

I also do not agree with setting artifical price limits, however I do see the need to regulate against monopolies and collusion.

Seems you just satisfied criteria #2.

Capablanca-Fan
29-02-2008, 09:41 AM
You seem to be confused about the difference between setting artificial price controls (such as limits on profit margins), and the need to regulate against collusive behaviour leading to oligopolistic pricing cartels.
Oh yeah, like petrol. Never mind that the government price gouges about 10 times as much as the petrol companies do.


I also do not agree with setting artifical price limits, however I do see the need to regulate against monopolies and collusion.
The free market defends against those. Monopolies and cartels flourish most under government protection and regulatory barriers to entry by competitors. It's no accident that existing companies often support government regulation. And the best known and most pernicious cartel in the world is OPEC, which is of course governments.

Typical of lefties: you point out failings in an imperfect market, but then assert that the government could do better without any proof.

Government regulators can be little Hitlers precisely because they are not accountable to the market. And they can find any excuse:

Price too low = predatory pricing
Price too high = gouging
Price neither too high nor too low relative to competitors = collusion

pax
29-02-2008, 10:48 AM
.. you think that social problems will go away by themselves if you just stop spending money on them.

.. life is sacred if you are an embryo or terminally ill - in between, you're on your own bub!

.. you get all outraged at taxation used to fund public services, but have no problem with billions spent on the military.

.. you preach about liberty for all - unless you're gay, or foreign, or a Muslim.

.. you think that because an unregulated free market works pretty well for hamburgers that it would work just as well for huge infrastructure services like roads, power distribution, water distribution, sewage.

.. you wax lyrical about all the things private enterprise has built, but ignore anything built by a government (like roads, water distribution, power distribution, sewage).

.. you really believe that monopolies cannot exist in an unregulated free market.

.. you believe anyone with a liberal idea is a communist.

.. you believe anyone with a liberal idea is a fascist. (yeah this one works both ways)

Basil
29-02-2008, 11:47 AM
Funny. A good stab at a return of serve.

Igor_Goldenberg
29-02-2008, 02:28 PM
.. you think that social problems will go away by themselves if you just stop spending money on them.

No, I don't. I neither believe that spending billions of dollars will solve that problem, or the benefit of solving worth the money spent.
Can you site examples of social problems successfully solved by government intervention?


.. life is sacred if you are an embryo or terminally ill - in between, you're on your own bub!

Don't know about the first part. At least in between you have better chances protecting your own interests.



.. you get all outraged at taxation used to fund public services, but have no problem with billions spent on the military.

If you find how defence can be solved by the market, I'll be very happy.



.. you think that because an unregulated free market works pretty well for hamburgers that it would work just as well for huge infrastructure services like roads, power distribution, water distribution, sewage.

And why not?



.. you wax lyrical about all the things private enterprise has built, but ignore anything built by a government (like roads, water distribution, power distribution, sewage).

Could it be because things built by private enterprise usually work better?



.. you really believe that monopolies cannot exist in an unregulated free market.

Show me a monopoly that
a) exists without government support and
b) uses it's position to harm consumers



.. you believe anyone with a liberal idea is a communist.
.. you believe anyone with a liberal idea is a fascist. (yeah this one works both ways)
That's a strange one. I thought you still live in Australia.

Igor_Goldenberg
29-02-2008, 02:33 PM
.. you preach about liberty for all - unless you're gay, or foreign, or a Muslim.

Agree on this one.

But if you think they are entitled to have more rights then everyone else - you are a lefty:owned: :owned:

pax
29-02-2008, 02:51 PM
No, I don't. I neither believe that spending billions of dollars will solve that problem, or the benefit of solving worth the money spent.
Can you site examples of social problems successfully solved by government intervention?

...
What's the matter - sense of humour deserted you? :owned: :owned: :owned:

Igor_Goldenberg
29-02-2008, 03:48 PM
What's the matter - sense of humour deserted you? :owned: :owned: :owned:
You'll have to do better that.

Basil
29-02-2008, 03:57 PM
What's the matter - sense of humour deserted you? :owned: :owned: :owned:
I agree with you Jon (pax). We asked you to have a SOH on the lefty list. While I'd want to debunk your list (and reckon I could in a heartbeat), I can see the funny side.

Garrett
29-02-2008, 04:14 PM
Igor may not have known Paxxy was being funny which is understandable.

Igor_Goldenberg
29-02-2008, 08:55 PM
Igor may not have known Paxxy was being funny which is understandable.
I knew he tried to.

pax
29-02-2008, 10:15 PM
I knew he tried to.
So Mr Humour, perhaps you'd care to explain why "you know your a lefty" is funny, but "you know you're a righty" isn't... Apart from the target, that is..

Southpaw Jim
29-02-2008, 10:25 PM
Show me a monopoly that
a) exists without government support and
b) uses it's position to harm consumers
Well, for all it matters, Microsoft has an effective monopoly on computer operating systems (lol, writing this on a Mac). For years, QANTAS had a monopoly on domestic airline services, and still does in the premium domestic market.

Whilst a monopolist may choose not to do so, simple microeconomic theory demonstrates that monopolies will tend to result in reduced output at inflated prices, which is bad for consumers. The only case in which a monopoly is a good thing is where there is market failure and the natural competitive market will not supply a desirable good at a reasonable price. Such circumstances are rare.

Spiny Norman
01-03-2008, 08:32 AM
.. you think that social problems will go away by themselves if you just stop spending money on them.
.. life is sacred if you are an embryo or terminally ill - in between, you're on your own bub!
.. you get all outraged at taxation used to fund public services, but have no problem with billions spent on the military.
.. you preach about liberty for all - unless you're gay, or foreign, or a Muslim.
.. you think that because an unregulated free market works pretty well for hamburgers that it would work just as well for huge infrastructure services like roads, power distribution, water distribution, sewage.
.. you wax lyrical about all the things private enterprise has built, but ignore anything built by a government (like roads, water distribution, power distribution, sewage).
.. you really believe that monopolies cannot exist in an unregulated free market.
.. you believe anyone with a liberal idea is a communist.
.. you believe anyone with a liberal idea is a fascist. (yeah this one works both ways)
Good list PAX, that's the sort of thing I was looking for ... but I scored 0 again ... damn! ... I must be more centrist than I give myself credit for ...

Igor_Goldenberg
01-03-2008, 05:07 PM
Well, for all it matters, Microsoft has an effective monopoly on computer operating systems (lol, writing this on a Mac). For years, QANTAS had a monopoly on domestic airline services, and still does in the premium domestic market.

Whilst a monopolist may choose not to do so, simple microeconomic theory demonstrates that monopolies will tend to result in reduced output at inflated prices, which is bad for consumers. The only case in which a monopoly is a good thing is where there is market failure and the natural competitive market will not supply a desirable good at a reasonable price. Such circumstances are rare.
I sort of expected Microsoft example. One of the very business that managed to become de-facto monopoly without relying on the government help.
So what? There is still Linux, there is still Mac. Yet despite all their efforts people prefer to buy/use Microsoft. Imaging Microsoft trying to exploit it's position by increases prices. People will run to Linux in droves.
Despite everyone bagging Microsoft, it still produces the best product at the best price, and consumer vote for Microsoft with their dollars.

All in all, in case of Microsoft it's monopoly is not a problem at all.

Igor_Goldenberg
01-03-2008, 05:16 PM
So Mr Humour, perhaps you'd care to explain why "you know your a lefty" is funny, but "you know you're a righty" isn't... Apart from the target, that is..

If you insist, here we go.

Jono's original list "you know your a lefty" has a huge list (I lost count when trying determine the number, well over 50) of hypocrisies . Pax or any other lefty did not even dispute that those are indeed hypocrisies (with exception of maybe one or two). whether someone shares them or not, is a different question. Judging by the reaction, quite a few do, but they do not want to admit it.
You are welcome, of course, to show why items in the list are not hypocrisies

Pax came up with list of seven hypocrisies to be, and only one of them is valid, the rest are not.

That's why I repeat:
"You have to do much better then that":owned: :owned: :owned:

Kevin Bonham
01-03-2008, 05:22 PM
Not being a lefty I am exempt from the above assessment. However, I noticed that several on the lefty list were not real hypocrisies but was too busy laughing at the list in general to bother itemising them.

As a general comment, sometimes when people think they have detected a hypocrisy, what they have really done is expose their ignorance of relevant differences between the cases.

In that list I found that to be the case virtually every time the subject of abortion was alluded to.

There were others that were genuine hypocrisies, but so what? Hypocrites are abundant at most extremes of politics, and this is probably a result of the way the traditional right-left axis promotes arbitrary combinations of liberalism and illiberalism towards each end of the spectrum.

Igor_Goldenberg
01-03-2008, 05:23 PM
Well, we were comparing two lists

TheJoker
01-03-2008, 06:19 PM
Igor

Not a monopoly but a recent dualopoly cartel was vishy/amcor busted by the ACCC. They pushed up the price of packaging in Australia which no doubt had a negative effect on every Australian consumer.

Basil
01-03-2008, 06:23 PM
Igor

Not a monopoly but a recent dualopoly cartel was vishy/amcor busted by the ACCC. They pushed up the price of packaging in Australia which no doubt had a negative effect on every Australian consumer.
I agree. But the checks and balances kicked in. QANTAS was recently whacked for same. That the problem (can) exist is not the issue, it is the ultimate ramification(s) that count.

TheJoker
01-03-2008, 06:35 PM
I agree. But the checks and balances kicked in. QANTAS was recently whacked for same. That the problem (can) exist is not the issue, it is the ultimate ramification(s).

The ramifications are higher prices, and proves that the free market does not always produce competition and lower prices for consumers as is continually espoused by libertarians.

If you think your own wallet did not suffer from the vishy/amcor cartel then think again.

A totally free market (unregulated) is not likely to benefit the consumer. Just look at the market manipulation that already occurs in a regulated market like short selling.

I am all for deregulation when it can be shown to have a benefit to the society. But I also support governement regulation that has a benefit to society.

TheJoker
01-03-2008, 06:41 PM
Righties continually claim that government should stay out business and development planning, but would be first to cry if an airport or factory was built next door to their house.

Basil
01-03-2008, 07:04 PM
The ramifications are higher prices, and proves that the free market does not always produce competition and lower prices for consumers as is continually espoused by libertarians.

If you think your own wallet did not suffer from the vishy/amcor cartel then think again.

A totally free market (unregulated) is not likely to benefit the consumer. Just look at the market manipulation that already occurs in a regulated market like short selling.
Errrm deer! I had imagined all that was understood. My point was that a checks and balance exist to rectify the problem. Yes, the cost to the consumer existed, but only for a time. An evil to be sure, but a temporary one. I hope you're not looking for utopia in commerce - only the really soppy, doe-eyed and/ or newly-hatched lefties do that.

It's not possible to build a mouse-trap that doesn't have these extraneous costs (in this case the temporary price gouge). What concerns/ annoys me with the lefty counter proposition is the suggestion that no such extraneous cost burden exists with 'their way'.

It often does exist directly because of burdensome over-regulation. This regulation can cost the consumer considerably more than the temporary price gouge:

-- The cost to the taxpayer (or industry if the governing impost is directly taxed) of the regulatory body will appear as a hidden cost somewhere along the line.
-- If overly onerous compliance demonstration is demanded of industry by government; that too emanates in prices.

I get cranky because I think that lefties have very little idea beyond:
1) Distrust everything ab initio
2) Build massive and restrictive fail-safes
3) Employ the world to administer them

This is how you get murdered in your beds while you think you're keeping the boogie man at bay.

In conclusion I would argue that it is better to punish the Visy/ Amcor situation retrospectively than build (and pay for) a monument to prevent it occurring in the first place.

What would you suggest as an alternative? Have a government-run (backed) competitor in all oligopolies (as is mooted for fuel)?

TheJoker
01-03-2008, 07:37 PM
Errrm deer! I had imagined all that was understood. My point was that a checks and balance exist to rectify the problem. Yes, the cost to the consumer existed, but only for a time. An evil to be sure, but a temporary one. I hope you're not looking for utopia in commerce - only the really soppy, doe-eyed and/ or newly-hatched lefties do that.

It's not possible to build a mouse-trap that doesn't have these extraneous costs (in this case the temporary price gouge). What concerns/ annoys me with the lefty counter proposition is the suggestion that no such extraneous cost burden exists with 'their way'.

It often does exist directly because of burdensome over-regulation. This regulation can cost the consumer considerably more than the temporary price gouge:

-- The cost to the taxpayer (or industry if the governing impost is directly taxed) of the regulatory body will appear as a hidden cost somewhere along the line.
-- If overly onerous compliance demonstration is demanded of industry by government; that too emanates in prices.

I get cranky because I think that lefties have very little idea beyond:
1) Distrust everything ab initio
2) Build massive and restrictive fail-safes
3) Employ the world to administer them

This is how you let get murdered in your beds while you think you're keeping the boogie man at bay.

In conclusion I would argue that it is better to punish the Visy/ Amcor situation retrospectively than build (and pay for) a monument to prevent it occurring ion the first place.

What would you suggest as an alternative? Have a government-run (backed) competitor in all oligopolies (as is mooted for fuel)?

Totally agree, all regulation should be looked at from a cost/benefit point of view.

In terms of vishy/amcor I would like to see more servere penalties. The fine was only 10% of what the increased profits were, hardly a deterrent.

In this case it was the regulatory body the ACCC who made sure the price hikes were only temporary. So without looking at the numbers I suggest this is probably an example of regulation that was cost efficient.

Basil
01-03-2008, 08:09 PM
In terms of vishy/amcor I would like to see more servere penalties.
Yes. I'm a big fan of thrashings - a slap on the wrist is so ... left? ;)

Igor_Goldenberg
01-03-2008, 08:34 PM
Igor

Not a monopoly but a recent dualopoly cartel was vishy/amcor busted by the ACCC. They pushed up the price of packaging in Australia which no doubt had a negative effect on every Australian consumer.

Cartels like that can exist, but for a limited time. Someone would have moved into this segment of the market sooner or later to bring the price down.

Free market is not perfect, no argument here. It just works much better then government (or anything else for that matter). For one case when ACCC intervention had a net benefit there are numerous cases where the net cost is negative.

Capablanca-Fan
01-03-2008, 10:19 PM
Cartels like that can exist, but for a limited time. Someone would have moved into this segment of the market sooner or later to bring the price down.
Indeed, cartels mainly exist precisely because the government is supporting them.


Free market is not perfect, no argument here. It just works much better then government (or anything else for that matter).
Of course. A major lefty fallacy is: we have a minor imperfection in the free market, therefore government must step in. They never argue: we have a major flaw in a government bureaucracy, therefore privatization would be a good idea.

But for the first, as you say, the government's fixing of one problem falls to the Law of Unintended Consequences, resulting in far bigger problems elsewhere.

And for the second, lefties ignore evidence that private enterprise has provided a more reliable water supply than that government supplier it replaces (New Jersey), and also built the New York Subway, an especially impressive feat so long ago.

But the latter failed because the Government stuck its fat beak, forbidding them to raise prices, so they went bankrupt, and the government could take it over. This also explains Pax's bleat that privatization is unlikely for such big projects: of course, when the investors can't be sure that the government won't steal their work again. Note that stealing doesn't just mean "nationalizing", a much beloved tool of the Left, but also forbidding the US Subway owners to set prices is in effect stealing from them, in that the rightful owners no longer truly own their property if they can no longer use it as they please.


For one case when ACCC intervention had a net benefit there are numerous cases where the net cost is negative.
Exactly. It's a huge waste of taxpayers' money, and hypocritical to boot. Graham Samuels ranted against petrol price gouging by petrol stations making a few cents per litre profit, but not against the Government for REAL price gouging with its excise tax that's ten times as much.

Southpaw Jim
01-03-2008, 10:20 PM
I sort of expected Microsoft example. One of the very business that managed to become de-facto monopoly without relying on the government help.
So what?
You asked for an example, I provided more than one.


There is still Linux, there is still Mac. Yet despite all their efforts people prefer to buy/use Microsoft. Imaging Microsoft trying to exploit it's position by increases prices. People will run to Linux in droves.
Bullshit. Most companies have millions invested in their IT infrastructure, and would not dump it for the sake of increased prices. But your post reminds me of more of Microsoft's behaviour - trying to patent aspects of linux code, to try and kill linux. I digress.


Despite everyone bagging Microsoft, it still produces the best product at the best price, and consumer vote for Microsoft with their dollars.
Bwahahahaha :lol: :lol: :lol: best product? Surely you're trolling..


All in all, in case of Microsoft it's monopoly is not a problem at all.
You obviously don't understand the problems with monopolies.


Cartels like that can exist, but for a limited time. Someone would have moved into this segment of the market sooner or later to bring the price down.
Not necessarily. Cartels usually exist where there are barriers to market entry. They exist precisely because it is difficult/impossible to move into that market, and their collective cartel actions ensure this.


For one case when ACCC intervention had a net benefit there are numerous cases where the net cost is negative.
I'd really like to see you substantiate this claim.

Capablanca-Fan
01-03-2008, 10:22 PM
Righties continually claim that government should stay out business and development planning, but would be first to cry if an airport or factory was built next door to their house.
The free market doesn't mean that people have a right to harm others. It's also not clear that righties are any less tolerant of noise or other polution than lefties. Lovely lefty straw man.

Southpaw Jim
01-03-2008, 10:25 PM
Lovely lefty straw man.
Pot, meet kettle! :P

Capablanca-Fan
01-03-2008, 10:27 PM
Well, for all it matters, Microsoft has an effective monopoly on computer operating systems (lol, writing this on a Mac).
They had no monopoly that wasn't from consumer choice. But they can't do a thing to make us buy their system if we don't want to.

The absurd anti-trust suits against microsoft were not from unhappy consumers but from less successful businesses. See also More Microsoft Antitrust Suit Insanity (http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4998).


For years, QANTAS had a monopoly on domestic airline services, and still does in the premium domestic market.
Why? Because government restricts competition.


Whilst a monopolist may choose not to do so, simple microeconomic theory demonstrates that monopolies will tend to result in reduced output at inflated prices, which is bad for consumers. The only case in which a monopoly is a good thing is where there is market failure and the natural competitive market will not supply a desirable good at a reasonable price. Such circumstances are rare.
Yet the anti-trust crap has mainly persecuted businesses that were successful precisely because they delivered high value at low cost, e.g. Microsoft.

Capablanca-Fan
01-03-2008, 10:38 PM
.. you think that social problems will go away by themselves if you just stop spending money on them.
No, I think they will lessen when social pathologies are not subsidized by the government. Conservatives don't believe that solutions are possible in an imperfect world, just trade-offs.


.. life is sacred if you are an embryo or terminally ill — in between, you're on your own bub!
Innocent life is always sacred. The free market forbids taking life, but this doesn't mean that the government should do for people what they can do better for themselves.

But lefties protest when a sadistic mass murderer is executed painlessly, but support the right to tear to pieces unborn babies in the womb or scald them with hyper-concentrated salt solution, or partially induce birth then poke in their heads with scissors and suck their brains out.


.. you get all outraged at taxation used to fund public services, but have no problem with billions spent on the military.
Of course: the government should be protecting its citizens from force. Lefties think that the role of government is to protect every citizen from himself.


.. you preach about liberty for all — unless you're gay, or foreign, or a Muslim.
Free marketeers support equal liberty for foreigners to sell goods to Australians. Pauline Hanson supported lefty protectionist tariffs that hurt Australian consumers and deny this principle of equality.


.. you believe anyone with a liberal idea is a communist.
While lefties think that anti-communism was worse than communism. It wasn't that long ago when lefties were praising the Soviet Union andattacking Reagan for calling it the "evil empire" and that its last chapters were being written.


.. you believe anyone with a liberal idea is a fascist. (yeah this one works both ways)
Again see Jonah Goldberg's Liberal Fascism for documentation of the strong historical affinity of American liberalism/progressivism with fascism and the similarity of modern liberal ideas with the fascist states.

pax
02-03-2008, 01:07 AM
The free market forbids taking life

The free market? Really?:eek: :eek:

p.s You don't seem to be laughing now..

Capablanca-Fan
02-03-2008, 10:18 PM
The free market? Really?:eek: :eek:
Of course. Free market doesn't equal anarchy. Indeed, it can work only if people lives and property are protected.


p.s You don't seem to be laughing now..
It's fun laughing only with those having a sense of humour :P

TheJoker
03-03-2008, 09:23 AM
Cartels like that can exist, but for a limited time. Someone would have moved into this segment of the market sooner or later to bring the price down.

In theory this idea sounds good, but are all sorts barriers to entering particular markets, at present it is true that some are government barriers, but the market itself also presents certain barries like start-up captial required, securing resources, level of risk, etc. The cartels can also create barriers with things like predatory pricing.

Your statement is a huge oversimplification.


Free market is not perfect, no argument here. It just works much better then government (or anything else for that matter).

Can you perhaps substaintiate this claim? Show me a market were all governement interference has been removed that has provided a long term cost benefit to the consumer.

Igor_Goldenberg
03-03-2008, 04:10 PM
In theory this idea sounds good, but are all sorts barriers to entering particular markets, at present it is true that some are government barriers, but the market itself also presents certain barries like start-up captial required, securing resources, level of risk, etc. The cartels can also create barriers with things like predatory pricing.

Your statement is a huge oversimplification.

Any generalization involve simplification.
There are indeed barriers to enter even in the freest market. It does not stop willing players, though.

As for the government intervention - it is like a random variable with negative mean. You might observe a positive result, but more likely and more often the result is negative.



Can you perhaps substaintiate this claim? Show me a market were all governement interference has been removed that has provided a long term cost benefit to the consumer.
You know very well that such market does not exist. However, when government interference is removed in any area, we observe a benefit to consumers over long time (and usually short time as well).

Capablanca-Fan
03-03-2008, 05:40 PM
In theory this idea sounds good, but are all sorts barriers to entering particular markets, at present it is true that some are government barriers, but the market itself also presents certain barries like start-up captial required, securing resources, level of risk, etc.
You've overlooked the fact that competition can occur with completely different businesses. E.g. it didn't help at all that a brand of US typewriters "controlled" the market in the US, after the advent of wordprocessors made typewriters virtually obsolete. The VHS/Beta rivalry now looks quaint after DVDs have turned video cassettes into museum pieces. And airlines face competition from trains, ships and cars. If there was an aluminium monopoly that was raising its prices too high, businesses would find other materials to substitute.


The cartels can also create barriers with things like predatory pricing.
Predatory pricing is a crock. It's a very unwise strategy for a business, who must make a loss in the present in the hope that it can recoup his losses with interest once the competitors were driven out of business. But if the business starts making a profit, new competitors can enter the market again. But the government should let them try this strategy, because consumers win with the high price. The only people protesting about this practice are less efficient rival businesses, NOT consumers.

Thomas Sowell points out in Basic Economics, p. 323 (2000)


"PREDATORY" PRICING

One of the popular fallacies that has become part of the tradition of anti-trust law is "predatory pricing." According to this theory, a big company that is out to eliminate its smaller competitors and take over their share of the market will lower its prices to a level that dooms the competitor to an unsustainable loss and forces it out of business. Then, having acquired a monopolistic position, it will raise its prices-not just to the previous levels, but to new and higher levels in keeping with its new monopolistic position. Thus, it recoups its losses and enjoys the above-normal profits thereafter, at the expense of the consumers....

Even when a rival firm has been forced into bankruptcy, its physical equipment and skills of the people who once made it viable do not vanish into thin air. A new entrepreneur can come along and acquire both-perhaps at low distress sale prices, enabling the new competitor to have lower costs than the old and hence be a more dangerous rival.

Dr Walter Williams provides another example (http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=3588)where rival businesses hurt consumers by invoking this predatory pricing furphy, so now Wawa gasoline station is verboten to serve free coffee to customers:


Why? The station was warned that dispensing free coffee put it in violation of Maryland's gasoline minimum-price law.

Here's my no-brainer question to you: Do you suppose that Maryland enacted its gasoline minimum-price law because irate customers complained to the state legislature that gasoline prices were too low

...

Let's first establish a general economic principle. Whenever one sees statutory or quasi-statutory minimum prices, he is looking at a seller collusion against customers in general as well as against particular sellers, those who are seen as charging too low a price.

....

You say, "Williams, that's preposterous; how can they sell legislators on the idea? After all, buyers of gasoline are more numerous than sellers of gasoline." To answer that question, you have to recognize a couple of other facts. First, legislators aren't known for being rocket scientists. Secondly, legislators love campaign contributions, and satisfying the interests of lobbyists is more important to their political careers than serving the interests of consumers in general.

Lobbyists such as WMDA Service Station & Automotive Repair Association, the Gasoline Retailers Association and the Petroleum Marketers Association of America are able to sell legislators on the fairy tale that if high-marketing gasoline outlets such as Wawa, Sheetz, Wal-Mart and others are allowed to charge prices that are too low, they'll drive all other gasoline stations out of business. Having done so, these high-marketing outlets could charge any price they pleased and make huge profits.

In economics, we call this strategy predatory pricing. It's an argument that has a ring of plausibility, but there's little evidence anywhere anytime that a predatory pricing scheme produced results even remotely close to what would-be predators envisioned. Questioning this fairy tale and asking for evidence would never cross the mind of a legislator.

Then Williams explains what I've also pointed out in answer to Joker's question about why more people don't agree with me:


Another reason legislators can get away with establishing these minimum-price laws has to do with another economic phenomenon called "narrow well-defined benefits and small widely dispersed costs." The beneficiaries of the gasoline seller collusion are relatively few in number and well organized. The victims, mainly gasoline customers, are difficult to organize, and the costs they bear are relatively small and widespread.

In other words, how many gasoline consumers would be willing to spend their time and energy fighting to unseat a legislator whose actions imposed, say, a nickel a gallon additional cost upon them? It's cheaper just to pay the nickel a gallon more and forget about it, but that's not true about gasoline retailers. It is worth their time and energy to pressure legislators for minimum-price laws, and politicians know this.


Your statement is a huge oversimplification.
Once again, you ignore the fact that the biggest cartels are government-backed. Yet you inconsistently refuse to argue from this to restricting government interference in the economy, while hypocritically using minor flaws in the market as justification for MORE government.

Hypocrisy, thy name is Lefty.

Axiom
03-03-2008, 05:46 PM
Stop Arguing Left Versus Right
You Should All Know This Is A Meaningless Paradigm
Stick To Issues And Facts

Kevin Bonham
03-03-2008, 05:50 PM
Even when a rival firm has been forced into bankruptcy, its physical equipment and skills of the people who once made it viable do not vanish into thin air. A new entrepreneur can come along and acquire both-perhaps at low distress sale prices, enabling the new competitor to have lower costs than the old and hence be a more dangerous rival.

What happens if the big company acquires them at "distress-sale prices" instead?

Axiom
03-03-2008, 05:56 PM
What happens if the big company acquires them at "distress-sale prices" instead?
ala the rothschild modus operandi ?
(see london straight after the battle of waterloo)

Capablanca-Fan
03-03-2008, 06:54 PM
ala the rothschild modus operandi ?
(see london straight after the battle of waterloo)
Even Rothschild was successful because he made oil more cheaply available. Sure, his competitors whinged about what is now called predatory pricing, but consumers benefited.

Capablanca-Fan
03-03-2008, 06:55 PM
What happens if the big company acquires them at "distress-sale prices" instead?
Maybe you could tell me, if you can find an actual example where consumers ended up worse off with the cheap prices followed by exorbitant prices.

TheJoker
03-03-2008, 09:45 PM
You've overlooked the fact that competition can occur with completely different businesses. E.g. it didn't help at all that a brand of US typewriters "controlled" the market in the US, after the advent of wordprocessors made typewriters virtually obsolete. The VHS/Beta rivalry now looks quaint after DVDs have turned video cassettes into museum pieces. And airlines face competition from trains, ships and cars. If there was an aluminium monopoly that was raising its prices too high, businesses would find other materials to substitute.

No doubt but while the new markets are developing consumers can suffer from monopolisation. It made be bad long term strategy for the monopoly to exploit their market position, but it is often the case in the business world that short term benefits are pursued with little consideration to the long term effects. And it is also possible to manage the position in such a way as gain benefit without losing customers.


Predatory pricing is a crock. It's a very unwise strategy for a business, who must make a loss in the present in the hope that it can recoup his losses with interest once the competitors were driven out of business. But if the business starts making a profit, new competitors can enter the market again.

Hoffan La Roche didn't seem to think it was such a poor strategy. But then again what would they know about business strategies compared to a guru such as yourself.


Even when a rival firm has been forced into bankruptcy, its physical equipment and skills of the people who once made it viable do not vanish into thin air. A new entrepreneur can come along and acquire both-perhaps at low distress sale prices, enabling the new competitor to have lower costs than the old and hence be a more dangerous rival.

In the case Boral and C&M, C&M developed a plant that could produce bricks IIRC at 6 times the speed of Boral, Boral who had a 30% market share started selling bricks at below cost in order to bankrupt the small C&M outfit. After C&M was bankrupt Boral bought the new plant at a reduced cost. However according to the High Court this was not predatory pricing.


another economic phenomenon called "narrow well-defined benefits and small widely dispersed costs." The beneficiaries of the gasoline seller collusion are relatively few in number and well organized. The victims, mainly gasoline customers, are difficult to organize, and the costs they bear are relatively small and widespread.

In other words, how many gasoline consumers or governements would be willing to spend their time and energy fighting to unseat a cartel whose actions imposed, say, a nickel a gallon additional cost upon them? It's cheaper just to pay the nickel a gallon more and forget about it.

Just changed a couple of words to show that "narrowly defined benefits and widely dispersed costs" is a key arguement for the practicing of price cartels.



Once again, you ignore the fact that the biggest cartels are government-backed. Yet you inconsistently refuse to argue from this to restricting government interference in the economy, while hypocritically using minor flaws in the market as justification for MORE government.

Firstly I not argueing for more governement I have conisitently said I support de-regulation were it can be shown as being beneficial to the consumer, however I do support regulations that deliver benefit to the consumer. I believe anti-collusion and anti-competition laws fall into that category.

Secondly I don't support statutory minimum prices, I support penalties were predatory pricing can be proved to have occured.

Secondly I do realise many cartels/monopolies are government supported, for example I find it disgraceful when apparent corruption is highlighted like the NSW governments failure to deliver promised taxi licenses to Lime taxis (Macquarie Group) after a substainal campaign donation by Cab-Charge who currently dominate the market. Just like the market, the government is also flawed.

You also fail to realise that in certain situations the government regulatory process actually benefits the businesses involved. Take casinos for example the government regulation of casinos is responsible for a great deal of the consumer confidence in thier products. Whilst at the same time ensuring they consider the social impact of their industry.

I neither subscribe to the ideal that governement regulation can fix all the problems of the market place nor that a free market will always deliver economic benefits to consumers. Either blanket position in my opinion is drastically flawed. I support looking at each case for regulation/de-regulation on its own merits.

TheJoker
03-03-2008, 10:07 PM
Maybe you could tell me, if you can find an actual example where consumers ended up worse off with the cheap prices followed by exorbitant prices.

With a monopoly or cartel the idea is to maximise the profit margin without being exorbitant, you don't want it to make it cost efficient for your customers to look elsewhere (such as imports), but on the other the profit margins wouldn't be sustainable if another competitor had reasonable capacity. When you have dominant market share it is in your interest to prevent your competitors from building capacity. It is often cost effective to acquire them hence increasing your market share and building on your own capacity whilst also hoping to realise some synergies. As Kevin pointed out and Boral executed, it is better to place them in a distressed position so as to acquire their assets at reduced cost.

Igor_Goldenberg
03-03-2008, 10:20 PM
No doubt but while the new markets are developing consumers can suffer from monopolisation. It made be bad long term strategy for the monopoly to exploit their market position, but it is often the case in the business world that short term benefits are pursued with little consideration to the long term effects. And it is also possible to manage the position in such a way as gain benefit without losing customers.


It's all correct, glitches are inevitable.
However, the government intervention would make things worse, not better.

Kevin Bonham
03-03-2008, 10:52 PM
Maybe you could tell me, if you can find an actual example where consumers ended up worse off with the cheap prices followed by exorbitant prices.

Your Sowell quote provided no actual examples of new businesses becoming dangerous rivals to entrenched dominators as a result of equipment and personnel falling off the back of a truck, so why should I provide an example of an obvious alternative possibility at this stage?

Capablanca-Fan
03-03-2008, 10:55 PM
No doubt but while the new markets are developing consumers can suffer from monopolisation. It made be bad long term strategy for the monopoly to exploit their market position, but it is often the case in the business world that short term benefits are pursued with little consideration to the long term effects.
So where is an actual example?


Hoffan La Roche didn't seem to think it was such a poor strategy.
How so? And did he managed to screw customers?


But then again what would they know about business strategies compared to a guru such as yourself.
Certainly nothing compared to Friedman, Sowell and Williams, all top economists. They all point out that it is an irrational strategy, where there is an extreme risk at selling below cost, because there is no guarantee that these costs will be recovered. The law also punishes presumed future behaviour of harming consumers with monopoly prices, when all the business has done thus far is benefit them with low prices.


In the case Boral and C&M, C&M developed a plant that could produce bricks IIRC at 6 times the speed of Boral, Boral who had a 30% market share started selling bricks at below cost in order to bankrupt the small C&M outfit. After C&M was bankrupt Boral bought the new plant at a reduced cost. However according to the High Court this was not predatory pricing.
So even your favorite example is not proof that this phenomenon actually occurs, as the Court said:


XII SUMMARY OF PRINCIPAL FINDINGS (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/federal_ct/1999/1318.html?AUD=NewsAnnouncements&Nodes=&site=CI)

201 The relevant market was the market in the Melbourne Metropolitan area in which builders (either directly or indirectly through sub-contractors such as blocklayers) acquired materials for the construction of walls and paving.

202 BBM did not have a substantial degree of power in that market.

203 If the relevant market was that for the acquisition of concrete masonry products, BBM did not have a substantial degree of power in that market either.

204 BBM did not take advantage of any power in either of the two markets mentioned.

205 The result I have reached can be tested in this way. The Commission has alleged a substantive contravention that was completed in October 1996 and not merely an attempted contravention (TPA s 76(1)(b)). In whatever terms the relevant market be defined, over the period of two and a half years it was characterised by excess capacity, low demand, very low prices, the exit of two participants (one well funded and the other not) and a new entrant with an efficient plant who built up a market share from zero to 40 per cent. That looks like a market operating competitively in a way that greatly benefited consumers. True it is that s 46, in contrast to other provisions of TPA Pt IV, is not concerned with the effect of the impugned conduct. But the undoubted competitive outcomes came about either (i) despite BBM taking advantage of a substantial degree of market power or (ii) because neither BBM, nor any other participant, had any market power. The latter is, I think, the more likely conclusion.


Just changed a couple of words to show that "narrowly defined benefits and widely dispersed costs" is a key arguement for the practicing of price cartels.
Only if competition is excluded, e.g. by government decree.


You also fail to realise that in certain situations the government regulatory process actually benefits the businesses involved.
Far from failing to realize this, I have pointed out just what Friedman and Sowell have documented: much of the push for regulation comes from businesses, not consumers. Predatory pricing complaints come from businesses that can't offer prices as low as those complained about. Regulatory organizations are often staffed by people in the industry, or people who hope for future employment by those they are regulating because there is more money there.

The point is that government regulation fails to help the consumers.


Take casinos for example the government regulation of casinos is responsible for a great deal of the consumer confidence in thier products. Whilst at the same time ensuring they consider the social impact of their industry.
There was government collusion with the casinos, and how has this helped the social impact of people throwing money at the pokies?


I neither subscribe to the ideal that governement regulation can fix all the problems of the market place nor that a free market will always deliver economic benefits to consumers. Either blanket position in my opinion is drastically flawed. I support looking at each case for regulation/de-regulation on its own merits.
A waste of time, when private enterprise repeatedly proves its superiority over government bureaucracies. There is no need to waste taxpayers' money on every case. Rather, the burden of proof should be on the government to show that it can do better than the free buyers and sellers.

Capablanca-Fan
03-03-2008, 10:57 PM
Your Sowell quote provided no actual examples of new businesses becoming dangerous rivals to entrenched dominators as a result of equipment and personnel falling off the back of a truck, so why should I provide an example of an obvious alternative possibility at this stage?
The onus is on you to justify laws against predatory pricing by showing that such a strategy has ever worked to screw over consumers in the long term. It should be obvious that any profitable monopoly will attract competitors unless they are excluded by force.

Kevin Bonham
03-03-2008, 11:01 PM
The onus is on you to justify laws against predatory pricing

Why? Did I say I supported them?

Capablanca-Fan
03-03-2008, 11:07 PM
Why? Did I say I supported them?
It seemed like it. Yet the only examples of predatory behaviour are from government-owned enterprises.

Kevin Bonham
03-03-2008, 11:40 PM
It seemed like it.

Why did it seem like it? After all, on the "free market, media" thread I explicitly opposed restrictions on monopolies involving luxury goods. I did say I would consider supporting restrictions on monopolies involving more or less "essential" items but (i) I have never taken a position on "predatory pricing" and (ii) I would also consider that in such a case the burden of evidence is on those supporting regulation.

All I was doing in this case was pointing out that Sowell had presented an optimistic scenario, without evidence or examples, but taken no account of an obvious alternative that might provide more challenge to his case. His discussion would be more useful if he did so.

It seems to me that on some of these threads you see cardboard cut-out opposition everywhere, even if it isn't actually there, and are most comfortable if you think you can tie any position querying any part of yours to some stereotyped "lefty" view that you have an easy answer for.

TheJoker
03-03-2008, 11:52 PM
How so? And did he managed to screw customers?

Well "he" is not a he but one of the world largest pharmaceutical companies. Yes they were convicted of predatory pricing.



Certainly nothing compared to Friedman, Sowell and Williams, all top economists. They all point out that it is an irrational strategy, where there is an extreme risk at selling below cost, because there is no guarantee that these costs will be recovered.

Actually I think many people would value the opinion of the business leadership of Roche in terms of actual business strategies over that of the theoretical economists mentioned.


So even your favorite example is not proof that this phenomenon actually occurs

Actually I provided an example of predatory pricing with the Canada v Hoffman-La Roche case. And note that in the BBM case the Full Court of the Federal Court did think the behaviour consituted predatory pricing, so it obviously has some merits.



Only if competition is excluded, e.g. by government decree.

Then you'll be happy to point out to me how competition was excluded by "government decree" in the vishy/amcor cartel.



The point is that government regulation fails to help the consumers.

Do believe this is a blanket statement?:rolleyes:

Say a consumer is shopping for a childrens car seat and notices that they have all been tested to the Australian Standards. The consumer can now buy the car seat with confidence in the safety of product. Without such regulatory controls the consumer would have no idea about the safety. Out of fear of buying a dodgy product would proabably have no choice but buy the most expensive hoping that price would reflect quality (which of course is no guarantee).

Does the consumer not get a benefit for te enforced regulatory standards. Does the business not also get a benefit by the increased consumer confidence.

I have no doubt that many regulations do fail to help the consumer, and these should be removed or revised. But your blanket approach is equally flawed.



There was government collusion with the casinos, and how has this helped the social impact of people throwing money at the pokies?

Firstly imagine how a casino would operate without government regulations, I have an idea since I worked in the casino industry in the past, and I can assure you there is litte in the way of ethics except for what is imposed by regulators. I am also aware of number of government decisions in the gaming industry that prevented products from coming to market because they were considered to be inducing players to gamble more.



A waste of time, when private enterprise repeatedly proves its superiority over government bureaucracies.

Can you please show me some government run entities that have been privatised and delivered better value to the consumer in Australia. We've had a number of privatisations (Aust Post, Telstra, QANTAS etc) so I'd like to see some actual figures showing the consumer benefits that have been realised in the privatisation process.


There is no need to waste taxpayers' money on every case. Rather, the burden of proof should be on the government to show that it can do better than the free buyers and sellers.

It is proving exactly that by the simple fact that minarchist state has failed to realise, whilst government regulated economies are thriving.

Capablanca-Fan
04-03-2008, 02:18 PM
Well "he" is not a he but one of the world largest pharmaceutical companies. Yes they were convicted of predatory pricing.
What did they actually DO?


Actually I think many people would value the opinion of the business leadership of Roche in terms of actual business strategies over that of the theoretical economists mentioned.
Did they actually make predatory pricing work, and were consumers harmed thereby with higher monopoly prices.

As I've said, government-owned companies are more likely to indulge in predatory pricing, because they care more about market share than profits. We can see this in the sharp drop of private charities after government bureacracies took over welfare.

And since you're on about chemicals, note that Herbert Dow defeated the attempt at predatory pricing of bromine by the government-backed German cartel Bromkonvention.


Then you'll be happy to point out to me how competition was excluded by "government decree" in the vishy/amcor cartel.
You'll be happy to point out how the free market couldn't have stopped it, not only with paper packaging but by using alternative means. How were consumers hurt exactly?


Do believe this is a blanket statement?:rolleyes:
I believe that they do more harm than good. Once again, the good can be short term, obvious and concentrated; the harm can be long-term, hidden and diffused.


Say a consumer is shopping for a childrens car seat and notices that they have all been tested to the Australian Standards. The consumer can now buy the car seat with confidence in the safety of product. Without such regulatory controls the consumer would have no idea about the safety. Out of fear of buying a dodgy product would proabably have no choice but buy the most expensive hoping that price would reflect quality (which of course is no guarantee).
There are plenty of free market incentives to provide good quality car seats. Reputation alone is a very strong incentive. Government safety regulations are likely to overdo things. There are examples where safety regulations actually reduce genuine safety, because they increase the price so much that people choose less safe alternatives. I provided an example of a charity providing meals to the homeless falling foul of government safety regulations for their kitchen, but if it were closed down, the homeless would eat from rubbish bins etc.

We also see the nonsense that the FDA approves a drug and proclaims that it will save 10,000 lives per year. We never hear their confession for costing 100,000 lives while the bureaucracy held up approval for 10 years.

It's also questionable that the government regulations enforcing car seats and air bags in the first place has actually saved lives.


Does the consumer not get a benefit for te enforced regulatory standards. Does the business not also get a benefit by the increased consumer confidence.
As well as the benefit of excluding competition thanks to the increased cost of entry.


I have no doubt that many regulations do fail to help the consumer, and these should be removed or revised. But your blanket approach is equally flawed.
But my approach is: government should stay out unless it is proven to be necessary. Yours is: government should regulate unless proven to be harmful. Yet the evidence is on the side of the free market doing better.


Firstly imagine how a casino would operate without government regulations, I have an idea since I worked in the casino industry in the past, and I can assure you there is litte in the way of ethics except for what is imposed by regulators. I am also aware of number of government decisions in the gaming industry that prevented products from coming to market because they were considered to be inducing players to gamble more.
What ethics?? I've already documented how casinos in Vic prospered because of the help of Kennett, who encouraged them to screw as much out of people as possible.


Can you please show me some government run entities that have been privatised and delivered better value to the consumer in Australia. We've had a number of privatisations (Aust Post, Telstra, QANTAS etc) so I'd like to see some actual figures showing the consumer benefits that have been realised in the privatisation process.
Don't you remember how long it took to obtain a telephone or get one repaired when government controlled it? How expensive an international call was?

I am barely old enough to remember the crappy service in both airports and airplanes when Air New Zealand was a government monopoly, and how it improved out of sight when competition was opened up.

Fedex is enormously better than US Post.


It is proving exactly that by the simple fact that minarchist state has failed to realise, whilst government regulated economies are thriving.
The least regulated are thriving the best. The most regulated have low economic growth and high unemployment. A recent example is Texas v Ohio (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120450306595906431.html?mod=opinion_main_review_ and_outlooks): Texas is thriving precisely because of the free trade agreements that the Dem candidates oppose, zero state corporate tax, and the equivalent of Howard's owrk choices; Ohio is in the dumps because of high corporate taxes and union domination, yet their Dem governor blames Bush rather than his own policies driving companies out.

TheJoker
04-03-2008, 03:15 PM
What did they actually DO?.

They gave away free valium for six months to send a competitor selling a generic brand of valium at cheaper prices bust. After the competitor went bust the free valium stopped and the inflated prices resumed. Note at the time they had somewhere in the order of 95% share of the market.



You'll be happy to point out how the free market couldn't have stopped it... How were consumers hurt exactly?

Well since I don't think there were any significant government barries (i could be wrong) prevent new market entrants then it goes to show that market forces alone did not prevent the cartel.

Consumer were hurt with higher prices.



It's also questionable that the government regulations enforcing car seats and air bags in the first place has actually saved lives.

Don't forget seat belts, speed limits, traffic lights, drivers licenses or road rules in general, I doubt any of these government services do anything to save lives either:rolleyes:



As well as the benefit of excluding competition thanks to the increased cost of entry.

True, but personally I as a consumer would prefer the safety checks were in place despite the additional cost.



But my approach is: government should stay out unless it is proven to be necessary. Yours is: government should regulate unless proven to be harmful.

Exactly my approach is if you can't prove that it is broken then don't fix it.

Maintain the status quo unless you can genuinely demonstrate a better alternative.

Your approach is fraught with risk; no-one knows what the impact of removing all government controls from the marketplace would be.



Yet the evidence is on the side of the free market doing better.

Is it?



I've already documented how casinos in Vic prospered because of the help of Kennett, who encouraged them to screw as much out of people as possible.

And there would be casinos in every medium sized town in Australia if it were a free market screwing a hell of a lot more money out of the public.



Don't you remember how long it took to obtain a telephone or get one repaired when government controlled it? How expensive an international call was?

No I don't remember, how about providing me with some actual figures to jog my memory. Perhaps to show me figures that prove the cost of international calls with Telstra has been reduced and repair serice times are shorter.

You don't seem to be able to produce a single piece of data to show that privatisation of an Australian government run entity has produced tangible consumer benefits. Surely there have been some studies conducted.

Capablanca-Fan
04-03-2008, 04:58 PM
They gave away free valium for six months to send a competitor selling a generic brand of valium at cheaper prices bust. After the competitor went bust the free valium stopped and the inflated prices resumed. Note at the time they had somewhere in the order of 95% share of the market.
So how have consumers been harmed? Does the current expense make up for the losses on giving away valium before? What is to stop a competitor entering the market again, especially with such high prices needed for predatory pricing both to work for the company and hurt customers (see below). Another tactic to beat predators is based on the very fact that they are prepared to lose money to keep out competitors: this very fact makes it profitable for competitors to enter the market and short-sell the shares of the predator. Jay Gould did this to the then dominant Western Union in the 1870s, and this wasn't even predatory; how much more would this work on a company that was prepared to lose money?


Well since I don't think there were any significant government barries (i could be wrong) prevent new market entrants then it goes to show that market forces alone did not prevent the cartel.
Where have cartels prospered except for government intervention?


Consumer were hurt with higher prices.
They would have to be much higher to to hurt the consumers who have previously benefited from the previous free drugs.

A competitor might have beaten this company the same way that Herbert Dow beat Bromkonvention: obtain some of the free or cheap drugs then use THEM as competition with the predator's products.

But meanwhile, the company's loss in the present must be huge at first, since under this theory, they would need to expand production of stuff they were selling below cost to increase their share of the market enough to drive competitors out of business. Then still more cost must be expended to buy the assets of their competitors under the Bonham refinement. So for the company to benefit, they must charge higher prices in the future. This huge increase in price would make it even easier for a competitor to enter the market. So the losses to the predator would probably exceed the losses to the prey company.

You also don't seem to mind consumers being hurt with even higher prices because of government. I've already mentioned that government taxes hurt petrol consumers 10 times as much as any petrol price gouging or predatory pricing could ever do.


Don't forget seat belts, speed limits, traffic lights, drivers licenses or road rules in general, I doubt any of these government services do anything to save lives either:rolleyes:
When one uses something that is potentially dangerous for others, there is a place to regulate that. Once again, you knock down a straw man—typical lefty ploy.

Speed limits have their place, but in Australia, Nanny State governments have set them way too low, as a revenue-raising device.

Seat belt laws make sense only because taxpayers' money is used to treat crash victims. As long as taxpayers have to shell out for such things, taxpayers have a right to make laws to minimize such costs. But under a libertarian system, people would be responsible for their own mistakes, so there would be no need for laws to protect them from themselves.

Seat belts undoubtedly save lives, but it's questionable that some of the other compulsory safety devices do.

You also don't have to be that old to remember biking without a helmet, playing on jungle gyms above concrete, drinking from tank water, riding in the front seat of the car—all things that Nanny State declared were too dangerous.


Exactly my approach is if you can't prove that it is broken then don't fix it.
But then you don't think a system where billions of dollars is wasted on tax compliance is broken. You also think a system that bullies unemployed people but also imposes 60–90% effective marginal tax rates on the unemployed is working.

But then you think that minor failings of the free market are proof positive that government intervention is warranted, without the slightest proof that it won't do more harm than good by the law of unintended consequences.


Maintain the status quo unless you can genuinely demonstrate a better alternative.
Already done, with numerous countries prospering by moving towards a freer market. Just compare the rise in prosperity of Estonia with the stagnant economies of Western Europe with high taxes and lots of government controls.


Your approach is fraught with risk; no-one knows what the impact of removing all government controls from the marketplace would be.
We do: at one time, there were no government controls, yet the market managed fine.


And there would be casinos in every medium sized town in Australia if it were a free market screwing a hell of a lot more money out of the public.
They wouldn't have got as far as they had without the Kennett Government encouraging them.


No I don't remember, how about providing me with some actual figures to jog my memory. Perhaps to show me figures that prove the cost of international calls with Telstra has been reduced and repair serice times are shorter.
Why should I do legwork for someone so out of touch with reality? All it takes is people who have lived through both systems.


You don't seem to be able to produce a single piece of data to show that privatisation of an Australian government run entity has produced tangible consumer benefits. Surely there have been some studies conducted.
You must be joking (as per your name)! It's common knowledge to anyone who has experienced the inefficient government-owned enterprises. You fail to show where government-owned enterprises have done anything better. I give you state water supplies which imposed a government monopoly by smashing home water tanks, and now sell water below market price resulting in shortages. I also give you the petrol price caps of the 1970s that resulted in waiting hours to fill up with petrol; such lines ended when price controls were removed.

Capablanca-Fan
04-03-2008, 07:49 PM
Teacher Certification Doesn't Guarantee a Winner (http://www.hoover.org/publications/ednext/4612527.html)
By Thomas J. Kane, Jonah E. Rockoff and Douglas O. Staiger
Education Next 7(1), Winter 2007


The results of our study of New York City public school teachers confirm a simple truth: some teachers are considerably better than others at helping students learn. For example, elementary-school students who have a teacher who performs in the top quartile of all elementary-school teachers learn 33 percent of a standard deviation more (substantially more) in math in a year than students who have a teacher who performs in the bottom quartile. Yet as we embrace this piece of conventional wisdom, we must discard another: the widespread sentiment that there are large differences in effectiveness between traditionally certified teachers and uncertified or alternatively certified teachers. The greatest potential for school districts to improve student achievement seems to rest not in regulating minimum qualifications for new teachers but in selectively retaining those teachers who are most effective during their first years of teaching.

...

Simply put, a teacher’s certification status matters little for student learning. We find no difference between teaching fellows and traditionally certified teachers or between uncertified and traditionally certified teachers in their impact on math achievement. Classrooms of students assigned to TFA teachers actually scored 2 percent of a standard deviation higher than students assigned to traditionally certified teachers. In reading, students assigned to teaching fellows did underperform students assigned to traditionally certified teachers by 1 percent of a standard deviation. These are the only instances in which we find that a teacher’s initial certification status has statistically significant implications for student achievement. The picture of teacher effectiveness looked the same when we separately examined teachers in elementary schools, middle schools, and schools with above- and below-median test scores.

[Thomas J. Kane is professor of education and economics at the Harvard Graduate School of Education. Jonah E. Rockoff is assistant professor of economics and finance at Columbia Business School. Douglas O. Staiger is professor of economics at Dartmouth College.]

TheJoker
05-03-2008, 10:43 AM
So how have consumers been harmed? Does the current expense make up for the losses on giving away valium before? What is to stop a competitor entering the market again...

Risk is what stops another competitor entering the market, when you are aware that the the monopoly is willing to operate at a loss for a short period in order to make sure you go bankrupt then it is a pretty risky if not pointless investment of capital.



Where have cartels prospered except for government intervention?

Vishy/Amcor???



They would have to be much higher to to hurt the consumers who have previously benefited from the previous free drugs.

Obviously The company saw it as a cost effective measure


A competitor might have beaten this company the same way that Herbert Dow beat Bromkonvention: obtain some of the free or cheap drugs then use THEM as competition with the predator's products.

Not possible as the free drugs were restricted to current clients.


But meanwhile, the company's loss in the present must be huge at first, since under this theory, they would need to expand production of stuff they were selling below cost to increase their share of the market enough to drive competitors out of business.

They already had the monopoly on the market. And there might not even be a cost just reduced profits. Imagine the pre-strategy mark-up is 300% they could still make a profit over the cycle.


Then still more cost must be expended to buy the assets of their competitors under the Bonham refinement.

They need not buy the assets if they do not wish to do so. As mentioned earlier it is unlikely that anyone would risk investing capital in a venture that is unlikely to remain a going concern.



So for the company to benefit, they must charge higher prices in the future. This huge increase in price would make it even easier for a competitor to enter the market. So the losses to the predator would probably exceed the losses to the prey company.

As stated earlier not if they already have high profit margins and a large capacity, it can be relativly easy for them to absorb the costs of short cycle of predatory pricing and still have an overall profit for the period.


You also don't seem to mind consumers being hurt with even higher prices because of government. I've already mentioned that government taxes hurt petrol consumers 10 times as much as any petrol price gouging or predatory pricing could ever do.

So what do you propose that the government remove the tax on petrol? If they do this it will result in a loss of revenue, that will be required to be offset by an increase in tax elsewhere (again the cost of which is eventually passed onto consumers). The government needs a certain amount of revenue to conduct the serivces that the public asks them to administer. So dicuss the cost of any particular tax on the consumer is pointless.



When one uses something that is potentially dangerous for others, there is a place to regulate that. Once again, you knock down a straw man—typical lefty ploy.

Actually it was you that was whinging about safety regulations (I believe airbags and the like) and how they impose uneccessary cost on the consumer, now you've changed your tune! Good tosee my arguement has made you see the light that some safety regulations are neccessary!



Seat belt laws make sense only because taxpayers' money is used to treat crash victims. As long as taxpayers have to shell out for such things, taxpayers have a right to make laws to minimize such costs. But under a libertarian system, people would be responsible for their own mistakes, so there would be no need for laws to protect them from themselves.

Yes there would the only difference would be that the insurance companies would make the rules. And in fact without a mandatory law for seat belts all consumers in a free market would lose out because insurance premiums would skyrocket due to the increased risk that if you caused an accident the other driver would likely sustain more serious injuries if not wearing a seat belt.

Again you fail to understand that such saftey measures have a positive effect on the market regulated or unregulated.



You also don't have to be that old to remember biking without a helmet, playing on jungle gyms above concrete, drinking from tank water, riding in the front seat of the car—all things that Nanny State declared were too dangerous.

Again individuals involved in risky behaviour increase the cost to all consumers, whether in a free market, through increased insurance premiums, or in a regulated market through increased saftey regulations or increased healthcare cost.



But then you don't think a system where billions of dollars is wasted on tax compliance is broken. You also think a system that bullies unemployed people but also imposes 60–90% effective marginal tax rates on the unemployed is working.

Have said many times that I support tax reform. I just don't know what the new model should look like, I'll leave that to the experts.


But then you think that minor failings of the free market are proof positive that government intervention is warranted

No what I say is that is some cases governement regulation is warranted based on proof (see seat belts above). I say that imperfections in the free market system means we should exercise caution when moving towar a free market model.



Already done, with numerous countries prospering by moving towards a freer market. Just compare the rise in prosperity of Estonia with the stagnant economies of Western Europe with high taxes and lots of government controls.

I don't think estonia adopted the blanket minarchist approach you suggest. I am sure they carefully evaluated situation were de-regulation would be beneficial and implemented them, they are probably also carefully measure the effects to ensure that the outcomes are as intended, this is exactly the approach I favour



We do: at one time, there were no government controls, yet the market managed fine.


I hope your not suggesting that since a free market worked for cavemen that this is comparable to today's globalised economy:eek: If so what a joke!!!!



They wouldn't have got as far as they had without the Kennett Government encouraging them.

Maybe not, but they would have gotten even further without any governement restrictions on casinos or gambling. Maybe you cannot see this since you have no experience with the gambling industry.



Why should I do legwork.

Its about substaintiating you assertions. Why should I take the word of someone who is cleary biased by their political veiws?



You must be joking (as per your name)! It's common knowledge to anyone who has experienced the inefficient government-owned enterprises. You fail to show where government-owned enterprises have done anything better.

Australia's healthcare vs the vastly more privatised US system.
Public education vs the period prior to the institution of public education.

Worldcom and Enron the two of the biggest ever failures in the history of enterprise both private companies.

You need to stop looking at the private sector through rose coloured glasses!

TheJoker
05-03-2008, 10:54 AM
Teacher Certification Doesn't Guarantee a Winner (http://www.hoover.org/publications/ednext/4612527.html)
By Thomas J. Kane, Jonah E. Rockoff and Douglas O. Staiger
Education Next 7(1), Winter 2007


... Simply put, a teacher’s certification status matters little.

[Thomas J. Kane is professor of education and economics at the Harvard Graduate School of Education. Jonah E. Rockoff is assistant professor of economics and finance at Columbia Business School. Douglas O. Staiger is professor of economics at Dartmouth College.]


Yet you still consider it appropriate to cite each of the authors formal qualifications in education.

Quite a paradox really; I should be compelled to take there work seriously because they are highly qualifed education professionals, yet there work says that certification in education is irrelevant.:confused:

I assume that both the certified and uncertified teachers receive the same "on the job training", which is no doubt the most important factor learning how teach effectively.

The article does not imply that someone with no formal teaching experience can teach at the same level as someone with a great deal of formal teaching experience. It fact it seems to suggest that the best way to become an effective teachers is to learn from your experienced peers.

Capablanca-Fan
05-03-2008, 12:45 PM
Yet you still consider it appropriate to cite each of the authors formal qualifications in education.
There's no pleasing you. The above is an example of insiders blowing the whistle.

The problem now remains that people who are very skilled in their subjects are put off by the mickey-mouse courses in these teacher certification courses. It is no wonder that teachers are typically among the lowest academic achievers, with the common effect that they are jealous of bright kids.

Capablanca-Fan
05-03-2008, 01:30 PM
So what do you propose that the government remove the tax on petrol?
At the very least, they should shut their fat gobs about profiteering petrol companies when they are by far the biggest profiteers of all. Actually, a decrease in excise would be especially helpful for poorer people.


If they do this it will result in a loss of revenue, that will be required to be offset by an increase in tax elsewhere (again the cost of which is eventually passed onto consumers). The government needs a certain amount of revenue to conduct the serivces that the public asks them to administer.
Some of the revenue is soaked up in compliance, as with our current cumbersome tax code, or in bureaucracy, as in ATO and Centrelink.


Actually it was you that was whinging about safety regulations (I believe airbags and the like) and how they impose uneccessary cost on the consumer, now you've changed your tune! Good tosee my arguement has made you see the light that some safety regulations are neccessary!
Nope, safety regulations should exist only to protect other people from things, not to protect people from themselves.


Yes there would the only difference would be that the insurance companies would make the rules.
And that would be fair. There is no need for the Nanny State to protect us from ourselves.


Again you fail to understand that such safety measures have a positive effect on the market regulated or unregulated.
Again you fail to understand that there is a tendency for bureaucracies to expand, and this includes those who formulate safety regulations that increasingly become overprotective and nannying.


Again individuals involved in risky behaviour increase the cost to all consumers, whether in a free market, through increased insurance premiums, or in a regulated market through increased saftey regulations or increased healthcare cost.
Insurance companies have an incentive to apply extra premiums on those indulging in risky behaviour. All a government can do is blunt things like make everyone pay more or forbid the practices.


Have said many times that I support tax reform. I just don't know what the new model should look like, I'll leave that to the experts.
Yet when I provide an expert who proposed a very plausible system, you naysay it without evidence, adopt the motto "nothing should ever be tried for the first time", and claim that the current system really isn't broken.


No what I say is that is some cases governement regulation is warranted based on proof (see seat belts above). I say that imperfections in the free market system means we should exercise caution when moving towar a free market model.
I say that gross imperfections in a government planned system means we should exercise caution in moving toward that system, and that demonstrable successes of the free market means that we should move towards this in the absence of proof of any greater problems.

After all, the onus should not be on freedom but on those who would restrict freedom. Free market by definition involves free buyers and sellers making transactions both think are beneficial. Government by definition involves force, and restricts the availability of mutually agreeable transactions to those approved by a third party.


I don't think estonia adopted the blanket minarchist approach you suggest. I am sure they carefully evaluated situation were de-regulation would be beneficial and implemented them, they are probably also carefully measure the effects to ensure that the outcomes are as intended, this is exactly the approach I favour
They radically reformed their economy to a flat tax and free trade. I.e. they certainly moved very strongly in the direction that I would take, and away from the direction that you would take.


I hope your not suggesting that since a free market worked for cavemen that this is comparable to today's globalised economy:eek: If so what a joke!!!!
Nope, because a free market requires laws to protect life and property and a government willing to enforce those laws.


Maybe not, but they would have gotten even further without any governement restrictions on casinos or gambling. Maybe you cannot see this since you have no experience with the gambling industry.
I have no intention of gambling if that's what you mean. But I hace documented Kennett's collusion with the gambling bigwigs.


Its about substaintiating you assertions. Why should I take the word of someone who is cleary biased by their political veiws?
I am biased in favour of freedom rather than force, aye.


Australia's healthcare vs the vastly more privatised US system.
Please explain more. E.g. America is where the most drugs are developed, and the most advanced medical technology exists. Many patients who would die on the waiting lists of Canada's socialized medical system are transported to America for treatment.

America's health problems stem from too much government intervention even now. This "mixed economy" fetish is a crock: there is either force or freedom.


Public education vs the period prior to the institution of public education.
Need to compare stands of wealth in those days. In America, most kids were educated well before it became compulsory. We don't need Nanny State for parents to do what's right for their children. Even now, many Australian parents choose education outside the government schools.


Worldcom and Enron the two of the biggest ever failures in the history of enterprise both private companies.
Even these are nothing compared to the biggest ever failures by government, which are also endemic instead of being exceptions.

Friedman notes that Enron (advised by your favorite lefty Bush-hating economist Krugman) hurt far more people precisely because the Government outlaws "insider trading", removing an incentive for people to reveal huge problems with the company to the market:


Michelle Caruso-Cabrera: Many Americans feel jilted by the market. They feel that when you look at the situation with Enron and WorldCom, they were ripped off.

Milton Friedman: Well, they were.

Caruso-Cabrera: What do you think was the cause of all these scandals?

Friedman: I think we should ask how they were discovered. How did we find out about Enron?

Caruso-Cabrera: Somebody blew the whistle.

Friedman: No, the stock market tanked their stock. The fact is the market is a very effective mechanism for uncovering cases like that. In fact, if I may say something that's very heretical, one of the reasons we've gotten things like Enron is because we've been increasingly outlawing insider trading, but insider (trading) is the most effective means of making sure a company that does the wrong thing is penalised for doing so.

Caruso-Cabrera: What do you mean?

Friedman: Here you've got a company like Enron which is doing fraudulent things. People on the inside know about it. One of the best ways to bring it out is to make it profitable, to make that knowledge profitable to them.

A whistleblower takes a chance, doesn't gain anything by it. But a person on the inside who knows things are going wrong, who just engages in selling in Enron stock, can make money on it and at the same time serve the market purpose of driving down the price of the stock. And that alerts other people.

Caruso-Cabrera: Right now there are requirements for inside traders, they have to notify...

Friedman: Well, insider trading is illegal. There are people going to jail for insider trading and I think it has been a great mistake. You want more insider trading, not less. You want to give the people most likely to have knowledge about deficiencies of the company an incentive to make the public aware of that.

Caruso-Cabrera: By selling and hence driving down the stock price.

Friedman: Or by buying when it's the other way around.

Caruso-Cabrera: Right now when an executive buys or sells they have to notify the SEC, and it becomes public record and everyone pays attention. Is that a good thing or a bad thing?

Friedman: That's why things go as far as they do. That's why Enron gets to the stage it is.

Caruso-Cabrera: So it shouldn't be a requirement that they have to publicise that they've sold stock?

Friedman: I think not. It never used to be, you know, this is not a matter of the last 20 or 30 years.

Caruso-Cabrera: So, you're saying it would be the volume of selling, not who is selling, that would drive the stock price lower and hence signal to other people.

Friedman: Of course, it doesn't matter who is selling. If you're selling, somebody has to buy. In order to get somebody to buy, you've got to encourage them, the price has to go down. You see, as is so often the case, people attribute things to the free market which are really the consequences of government interference with the free market. Again and again it turns out that except for you and CNBC and the like, the free market doesn't have a public-relations mechanism. It does not have public defenders, as it were.


You need to stop looking at the private sector through rose coloured glasses!
I never claimed that the free market was perfect. How could it be with imperfect human beings. But I do insist that those who advocate government intervention to cure these problem demonstrate that the intervention won't cause even greater problems. You're the one who is looking at government through rose-coloured glasses! I.e. you give the benefit of the doubt to force rather than freedom.

Aaron Guthrie
05-03-2008, 02:40 PM
Quite a paradox really; I should be compelled to take there work seriously because they are highly qualifed education professionals, yet there work says that certification in education is irrelevant.:confused:Not really, if certification matters, then certification doesn't matter. Thus, on pain of contradiction, certification doesn't matter. (For if it did, you could deduce from that that it wouldn't, and thus it both would and wouldn't.)

TheJoker
05-03-2008, 02:45 PM
At the very least, they should shut their fat gobs about profiteering petrol companies when they are by far the biggest profiteers of all. Actually, a decrease in excise would be especially helpful for poorer people.

But the government has the peoples mandate to ensure that companies behave in a competitive manner. So it is there job to voice concern over collusion.



Some of the revenue is soaked up in compliance, as with our current cumbersome tax code, or in bureaucracy, as in ATO and Centrelink.

Agreed, but petrol tax can't be reduced until such reforms are made.



Nope, safety regulations should exist only to protect other people from things, not to protect people from themselves.

But you say you support insurance companies introducing such regulations in a free market. So its just replacing one set of regulations with another either way the consumer pays.

And I assume you wouldn't allow people to be un-insured your free market scenario?

And what about businesses would they be required to have insurance?



Again you fail to understand that there is a tendency for bureaucracies to expand...

Evidence? I would have thought there has been a reduction in regulation over the last few decades world-wide.



Insurance companies have an incentive to apply extra premiums on those indulging in risky behaviour. All a government can do is blunt things like make everyone pay more or forbid the practices.

Lets go back to the seat belt example, Driver A always wears a seat belt as required by his insurance policy (but not required by law in our minarchist scenario) he causes an accident (Driver A is at fault) slamming into Driver B's car, Driver B is injured serverly since he decided not to wear a seat belt. Driver A's insurance company is liable to pay the damages to Driver B which are higher than if he had been mandated to wear a seat belt. As a result of the higher payouts all insurance premiums increase.

Sanme could apply for hitting someone on a bicycle without a helmet and so on and so on.



Yet when I provide an expert who proposed a very plausible system, you naysay it without evidence, adopt the motto "nothing should ever be tried for the first time", and claim that the current system really isn't broken.

Actually I said that the numbers you provided didn't appear to stack-up and I would like to see such a system trialed first before a full scale implementation (that's just good sense).

And I have consistently said I support a reform (simplification) of the current taxation system.



I say that gross imperfections in a government planned system means we should exercise caution in moving toward that system, and that demonstrable successes of the free market means that we should move towards this in the absence of proof of any greater problems.

I say treat each case on its merits. and don't offer such broad over-generalisations.

And in fact I wouldn't be surprised if we are in fact moving toward a less regulated market.


After all, the onus should not be on freedom but on those who would restrict freedom. Free market by definition involves free buyers and sellers making transactions both think are beneficial. Government by definition involves force, and restricts the availability of mutually agreeable transactions to those approved by a third party.

More adept might be free market favours the right of the individual over the community.

Government favours the right of the community over the individual.




They radically reformed their economy to a flat tax and free trade. I.e. they certainly moved very strongly in the direction that I would take, and away from the direction that you would take.


I support a flat tax rates, I think they offer a competitive advantage when it comes to recruiting top workforce talent in the global market.


Nope, because a free market requires laws to protect life and property and a government willing to enforce those laws.

So when exactly was this free market in operation that you mentioned in your previous post?



I have no intention of gambling if that's what you mean

No I mean you have no experience in the industry as a professional, which is perhaps why you fail to see that an unregulated gambling industry would have a much greater negative social impact.


I am biased in favour of freedom rather than force.

I would say you are biased toward the indivual over the community.


Please explain more. E.g. America is where the most drugs are developed, and the most advanced medical technology exists. Many patients who would die on the waiting lists of Canada's socialized medical system are transported to America for treatment.

Firstly the pharmacueticals and medical technology industry is generally independant of healthcare.

Waiting lists in Canada are for elective procedures. Very few patients specifically travel to Canada for medical treatment this was covered in the previous thread in which your statemnt was shown to be a furfy.

Look at the cost per captia of the US system double that of Australia. So much more the private sector offering a cheaper alternative.


America's health problems stem from too much government intervention even now. This "mixed economy" fetish is a crock.

So what would you do for the millions of Americans who can not afford private health insurance? Let them die in the street?



Need to compare stands of wealth in those days. In America, most kids were educated well before it became compulsory. We don't need Nanny State for parents to do what's right for their children. Even now, many Australian parents choose education outside the government schools..

And if they don't do whats right for their children (i.e. decide not to educate them).

Southpaw Jim
05-03-2008, 03:19 PM
Evidence? I would have thought there has been a reduction in regulation over the last few decades world-wide.
I would've thought so, especially in Australia. I work in the area of regulation review, and that is exactly what we - and other similar units in other jurisdictions - are tasked with.

Capablanca-Fan
05-03-2008, 03:22 PM
But the government has the peoples mandate to ensure that companies behave in a competitive manner. So it is there job to voice concern over collusion.
Where is this mandate? And some forms of competition are verboten. So it's just an excuse for a power grab by government.


Agreed, but petrol tax can't be reduced until such reforms are made.
Why not? We have a surplus.


But you say you support insurance companies introducing such regulations in a free market. So its just replacing one set of regulations with another either way the consumer pays.
Because private insurance would be more efficient and result in lower average prices than government's blunt instrument.


And I assume you wouldn't allow people to be un-insured your free market scenario?
Not if what they are doing has a potential to damage others, e.g. a car.


Evidence? I would have thought there has been a reduction in regulation over the last few decades world-wide.
And this has been for the better. A good argument for further reductions. After all, when such reductions were proposed, there was much bleating that the sky would fall.


Lets go back to the seat belt example, Driver A always wears a seat belt as required by his insurance policy (but not required by law in our minarchist scenario) he causes an accident (Driver A is at fault) slamming into Driver B's car, Driver B is injured serverly since he decided not to wear a seat belt. Driver A's insurance company is liable to pay the damages to Driver B which are higher than if he had been mandated to wear a seat belt. As a result of the higher payouts all insurance premiums increase.
Maybe not, because Driver B could have been said to have contributed to his injury by not wearing one.


Actually I said that the numbers you provided didn't appear to stack-up and I would like to see such a system trialed first before a full scale implementation (that's just good sense).
How would you trial it without implementing it?


And I have consistently said I support a reform (simplification) of the current taxation system.
Good. But your actions in opposing specific and well-argued reform models, and and a willingness to defend the status quo, belay your words.


More adept might be free market favours the right of the individual over the community.
No, it favours the right of people to be free to buy and sell as they please.


Government favours the right of the community over the individual.
Lefty propaganda. Many atrocities have been committed by governments in the name of "the people" or "the community".


I support a flat tax rates, I think they offer a competitive advantage when it comes to recruiting top workforce talent in the global market.
Good to know.


No I mean you have no experience in the industry as a professional, which is perhaps why you fail to see that an unregulated gambling industry would have a much greater negative social impact.
I see that Kennett did much damage by promoting the gambling industry. States have become addicted to the gambling revenue, which is a tax on those unable to perform simple probability calculations.


I would say you are biased toward the indivual over the community.
I would say, with Adam Smith, that the community benefits through the free market, even when that benefit was not part of the intention of its participants. Conversely, with Milton Friedman, I would say that bureaucracies set up ostensibly for the benefit of the community, by another "invisible hand", tend to end up benefiting special interests, or the upper middle class at the expense of the poor and the very rich (Director's Law).


Waiting lists in Canada are for elective procedures. Very few patients specifically travel to Canada for medical treatment this was covered in the previous thread in which your statemnt was shown to be a furfy.
Yeah, elective all right: patients can elect to live or die!


So what would you do for the millions of Americans who can not afford private health insurance? Let them die in the street?
Many of the non-insured can afford it, but choose not to buy it. And government regulations made insurance much more expensive than it needs to be.

And typical of a Lefty to underestimate private charity, since lefties can conceive of generosity only with other people's money. But it's not too surprising, since predatory behaviour by governments has driven many charities out of existence.


And if they don't do whats right for their children (i.e. decide not to educate them).
It is crass to make law by extreme cases. It is better to make public policy decisions on the overwhelming majority, then deal with the outliers. We don't have feeding laws; but when parents abuse children by starving them, we throw the parents in jail. We have extreme case laws, but don't have broad law saying, these are things you must do as a parent.

Capablanca-Fan
10-03-2008, 01:42 PM
SCHOOLS: Surviving ideological bias in the c (http://www.newsweekly.com.au/articles/2007oct27_s.html)lassroom
by Dr Mark Lopez, educational consultant

The left-wing bias in our schools has been pervasive for so long that most Australians are scarcely even conscious of it anymore. However, it presents many students with additional challenges, writes Mark Lopez.


The president of the Australian Education Union (AEU), Ms Pat Byrne, openly acknowledged the ideological bias that dominates the school system in her address to teachers at her union's conference in 2005, when she vehemently defended her union's position. She declared: "... [W]e have succeeded in influencing curriculum development in schools, education departments and universities. The conservatives have a lot of work to do to undo the progressive curriculum."

This means that for the numerous students with non-Left views, the education system presents additional challenges.

While many teachers are likeable people who generate a pleasant atmosphere in their classrooms, what pervades in the school system is a way of looking at the world characterised by the Left, an outlook presented not as ideological but as normal, correct, legitimate and just.

More importantly, in terms of assessment, what also exists is a subtle un-stated pressure for students to ideologically conform if they want to succeed academically.

It should be noted that most of the teachers exerting this pressure would probably be unaware that they are doing so because they would be unaware of the bias affecting their assessment. From the teachers' perspective, they are simply sharing their enthusiasms with their classes and responding positively to what they prefer to see in students' work. Meanwhile, the "politically incorrect" arguments presented by some students in their essays would be assessed more severely because, from the teachers' perspective, they are genuinely seen to be flawed.

Teacher bias

As a private tutor, what I have noticed, by closely observing patterns of ticks and comments made in the assessment of students' papers, is that when students clearly indicate in the introductions of their essays that they share their teacher's politically correct beliefs, the teacher automatically clicks into what I describe as a non-critical frame of mind. Consequently, the teacher is less inclined to notice mistakes in grammar, argument, or in the presentation of evidence. Meanwhile, if students cross the teacher's bias, the opposite happens. The teacher clicks into a critical frame of mind, finding every justification in the essay to deduct grades.

Due to the psychological subtlety of this behaviour, it is highly likely that the teachers displaying their bias would not recognise it as such, but rather see the grade solely as the product of their professional judgement. It is human nature to display an affinity for those who appear to be like-minded, and to favour them, and this is as true for the assessment of essays as it is in most human interactions. However, because so many teachers share an ideological disposition, the aggregate effect of this tendency is a politically correct bias that appears to be both systematic and widespread.

...

Davidflude
10-03-2008, 03:10 PM
SCHOOLS: Surviving ideological bias in the c (http://www.newsweekly.com.au/articles/2007oct27_s.html)lassroom
by Dr Mark Lopez, educational consultant

The left-wing bias in our schools has been pervasive for so long that most Australians are scarcely even conscious of it anymore. However, it presents many students with additional challenges, writes Mark Lopez.


The president of the Australian Education Union (AEU), Ms Pat Byrne, openly acknowledged the ideological bias that dominates the school system in her address to teachers at her union's conference in 2005, when she vehemently defended her union's position. She declared: "... [W]e have succeeded in influencing curriculum development in schools, education departments and universities. The conservatives have a lot of work to do to undo the progressive curriculum."

This means that for the numerous students with non-Left views, the education system presents additional challenges.

While many teachers are likeable people who generate a pleasant atmosphere in their classrooms, what pervades in the school system is a way of looking at the world characterised by the Left, an outlook presented not as ideological but as normal, correct, legitimate and just.

More importantly, in terms of assessment, what also exists is a subtle un-stated pressure for students to ideologically conform if they want to succeed academically.

It should be noted that most of the teachers exerting this pressure would probably be unaware that they are doing so because they would be unaware of the bias affecting their assessment. From the teachers' perspective, they are simply sharing their enthusiasms with their classes and responding positively to what they prefer to see in students' work. Meanwhile, the "politically incorrect" arguments presented by some students in their essays would be assessed more severely because, from the teachers' perspective, they are genuinely seen to be flawed.

Teacher bias

As a private tutor, what I have noticed, by closely observing patterns of ticks and comments made in the assessment of students' papers, is that when students clearly indicate in the introductions of their essays that they share their teacher's politically correct beliefs, the teacher automatically clicks into what I describe as a non-critical frame of mind. Consequently, the teacher is less inclined to notice mistakes in grammar, argument, or in the presentation of evidence. Meanwhile, if students cross the teacher's bias, the opposite happens. The teacher clicks into a critical frame of mind, finding every justification in the essay to deduct grades.

Due to the psychological subtlety of this behaviour, it is highly likely that the teachers displaying their bias would not recognise it as such, but rather see the grade solely as the product of their professional judgement. It is human nature to display an affinity for those who appear to be like-minded, and to favour them, and this is as true for the assessment of essays as it is in most human interactions. However, because so many teachers share an ideological disposition, the aggregate effect of this tendency is a politically correct bias that appears to be both systematic and widespread.

...

I intensely dislike the politization of education. Personally I think that the first step is to get rid of political stuff from the syllabus. this is easy to say but difficult to achieve. There are many subjects where it should be easy to avoid political stuff, mathematics, languages, science subjects (except biology) but
I suspect that it is in English and history that the main danger arises.

In English the defence should be the selection of set texts. I strongly believe in the concept of good models. There are a host of superbly written books with strong story lines that teenagers can handle. Just avoid the politically correct crap. This reminds me it is time that i wrote the great Australian novel. I have got as far as the first sentence.

"I was a rebellious acne ridden drug addicted teenager from outer space who married an axe murderess."

Aaron Guthrie
10-03-2008, 03:16 PM
I intensely dislike the politization of education. Personally I think that the first step is to get rid of political stuff from the syllabus. this is easy to say but difficult to achieve. There are many subjects where it should be easy to avoid political stuff, mathematics, languages, science subjects (except biology) but
I suspect that it is in English and history that the main danger arises.And Politics! Unless you mean to restrict things to the not late years of high school.

Basil
10-03-2008, 03:28 PM
I intensely dislike the politization of education.
I remember being 10 years old in a geography class. The teacher (looking back now) was waaaay lefty {geez, there's a shock} and she was talking about European borders and how they came into being (pushing her own barrow like there was no tomorrow). I recall she had us terrified of the cold war and the political ramifications.
Another GD true story.

pax
10-03-2008, 03:45 PM
I remember being 10 years old in a geography class. The teacher (looking back now) was waaaay lefty {geez, there's a shock} and she was talking about European borders and how they came into being (pushing her own barrow like there was no tomorrow). I recall she had us terrified of the cold war and the political ramifications.
Another GD true story.
I had a Social Studies teacher who warned of the potential threat of terrorism, and connections with bio and chem weapons way back in the 80's. I don't think he was particularly lefty, but he certainly knew what he was talking about.

Capablanca-Fan
10-03-2008, 03:58 PM
I intensely dislike the politization of education. Personally I think that the first step is to get rid of political stuff from the syllabus. this is easy to say but difficult to achieve. There are many subjects where it should be easy to avoid political stuff, mathematics, languages, science subjects (except biology) but I suspect that it is in English and history that the main danger arises.
Yes. But there would be no problem if taxpayers could choose their kids schools, rather than being stuck with whatever model the educracy imposes.


In English the defence should be the selection of set texts. I strongly believe in the concept of good models. There are a host of superbly written books with strong story lines that teenagers can handle. Just avoid the politically correct crap. This reminds me it is time that i wrote the great Australian novel. I have got as far as the first sentence.
The problem is that Lefties disparage works of ‘dead white European males’ as ‘privileged’. They refuse to understand that their only ‘privilege’ is the wide approval by many readers over time because of their great merit.

There is also a wide disparagement of grammar and spelling in English, and dates and events in history. All in the name of ‘critical thinking’ of course, but the trouble is that they provide no facts to think critically about.

pax
10-03-2008, 04:03 PM
The problem is that Lefties disparage works of ‘dead white European males’ as ‘privileged’...
That figment just keeps popping up..

Capablanca-Fan
10-03-2008, 04:22 PM
That figment just keeps popping up..
Yes, Pax's pretence that lefties in power are not doing those things.

pax
10-03-2008, 05:01 PM
Yes, Pax's pretence that lefties in power are not doing those things.
No, but you translate one person doing something to meaning "all lefties" are doing something. But then your whole house of cards is built on a foundation of "evidence by anecdote", so it's hardly surprising.

Igor_Goldenberg
10-03-2008, 05:50 PM
I intensely dislike the politization of education. Personally I think that the first step is to get rid of political stuff from the syllabus. this is easy to say but difficult to achieve. There are many subjects where it should be easy to avoid political stuff, mathematics, languages, science subjects (except biology) but
I suspect that it is in English and history that the main danger arises.

In English the defence should be the selection of set texts. I strongly believe in the concept of good models. There are a host of superbly written books with strong story lines that teenagers can handle. Just avoid the politically correct crap. This reminds me it is time that i wrote the great Australian novel. I have got as far as the first sentence.

"I was a rebellious acne ridden drug addicted teenager from outer space who married an axe murderess."

It is not possible to get rid of politicization and a bias in education. It will always include indoctrination. To pretend otherwise is quite naive.

The way to deal with it is to let parent choose what sort of indoctrination they want for their children. Of course we (parents) will pretend that we are choosing unbiased education which balanced and free of indoctrination.
Having wide spectre is of paramount importance to make sure that different view balance each other, as well as provide range of school that do offer something close to unbiased education.

Miguel
10-03-2008, 05:58 PM
SCHOOLS: Surviving ideological bias in the c (http://www.newsweekly.com.au/articles/2007oct27_s.html)lassroom
by Dr Mark Lopez, educational consultant
Not exactly a prime example of journalism. Lopez appeals to fear by repeatedly using "bias" in boldface subtitles, and then proceeds to generalise from his artfully worded anecdotes (which could be entirely fictional, since there is almost no way to verify the truthfulness.) It's just more of the same "I gotz da Real Evidence™" rubbish.

(I'm not saying that bias doesn't exist. I'm saying that the article is a load of rhetorical crap.)

Capablanca-Fan
10-03-2008, 07:12 PM
(I'm not saying that bias doesn't exist. I'm saying that the article is a load of rhetorical crap.)
If you have the slightest evidence that Lopez was lying, put it — or shut it.

No amount of testimony would convince a diehard lefty like you, who's blind to his own bias.

Capablanca-Fan
10-03-2008, 07:15 PM
No, but you translate one person doing something to meaning "all lefties" are doing something.
No, just a lot of them.

Miguel
10-03-2008, 08:07 PM
If you have the slightest evidence that Lopez was lying, put it
Get it right, Jono. I didn't say Lopez was lying. I said that his article was rhetorical crap, and that the truthfulness of his anecdotes is almost impossible to verify.


— or shut it.
Why, don't you like your beloved heroes being criticised? Too bad!


No amount of testimony would convince a <froth-flecked rant>
Too right. Only an intellectual lightweight would be convinced by anecdotes.

Capablanca-Fan
10-03-2008, 08:23 PM
Get it right, Jono. I didn't say Lopez was lying. I said that his article was rhetorical crap, and that the truthfulness of his anecdotes is almost impossible to verify.
But no matter how many examples of leftist bias in the classroom are adduced, you will demand impossible standards of proof. But when it comes to a lefty cause, evidence is not even necessary.


Too right. Only an intellectual lightweight would be convinced by anecdotes.
While a lefty intellectual featherweight won't be convinced by a mountain of testimonies.

Miguel
10-03-2008, 09:47 PM
But no matter how many examples of leftist bias in the classroom are adduced, you will demand impossible standards of proof. But when it comes to a lefty cause, evidence is not even necessary.
Straw man.


While a lefty intellectual featherweight won't be convinced by a mountain of testimonies.
I have no idea who you're talking about, but kudos to him/her for not being convinced by a molehill of anecdotes.

TheJoker
10-03-2008, 11:02 PM
Personally I think that the first step is to get rid of political stuff from the syllabus.

Wouldn't it be better just to ensure that students are exposed to wide range of political views (a balanced approach off course) let them make up there own mind based on critical thinking.

Basil
10-03-2008, 11:04 PM
Wouldn't it be better just to ensure that students are exposed to wide range of political views (a balanced approach off course) let them make up there own mind based on critical thinking.
And where exactly are we going to find a non left-wing teacher? :lol:

TheJoker
10-03-2008, 11:08 PM
Yes. But there would be no problem if taxpayers could choose their kids schools.

Can you explain how this would ensure that education is not politised, it would seem to me that the schools would likley espouse the political views of their constituencies.

TheJoker
10-03-2008, 11:12 PM
And where exactly are we going to find a non left-wing teacher? :lol:

Well I have had quite a number durig my university studies, but then again I am studying business.

pax
10-03-2008, 11:25 PM
I'm sure Jono's homeschooled kids are not exposed to any political bias whatsoever ;)

Capablanca-Fan
11-03-2008, 12:10 AM
Can you explain how this would ensure that education is not politised, it would seem to me that the schools would likley espouse the political views of their constituencies.
Fine, but that would be the parents' choice. And because the government is not forcing people to pay for one of these choices over another, there would be no more fighting about education than there is over what church/synagogue/mosque families attend if any.

Capablanca-Fan
11-03-2008, 12:12 AM
I'm sure Jono's homeschooled kids are not exposed to any political bias whatsoever ;)
Since your tax dollars are not paying for it, then it shouldn't bother you. But my tax dollars are paying for the leftist indoctrination in public schools and unis.

TheJoker
11-03-2008, 09:59 AM
Fine, but that would be the parents' choice. And because the government is not forcing people to pay for one of these choices over another, there would be no more fighting about education than there is over what church/synagogue/mosque families attend if any.

So you don't want to remove political bias from a child's education, you simply the want the parents to be able to choose the political bias under which their children are educated, is that correct?

Igor_Goldenberg
11-03-2008, 10:53 AM
So you don't want to remove political bias from a child's education, you simply the want the parents to be able to choose the political bias under which their children are educated, is that correct?
Read my yesterday post. Bias is impossible to remove. It can be balanced by choice of different alternatives.
Personally, I prefer parents to choose the bias rather then the bureaucrat.

Capablanca-Fan
11-03-2008, 11:02 AM
So you don't want to remove political bias from a child's education, you simply the want the parents to be able to choose the political bias under which their children are educated, is that correct?
And read my post too. As long as I am not choosing the bias for your children, you shouldn't worry. But I worry if you or a bureaucrat chooses a bias for me.

pax
11-03-2008, 11:12 AM
I wonder how you would propose to work out if your child's school is politically biased? Interview every teacher?

Capablanca-Fan
11-03-2008, 11:32 AM
I wonder how you would propose to work out if your child's school is politically biased? Interview every teacher?
Would that more parents find out what their child is being taught. This applies to Christian schools too.

pax
11-03-2008, 12:35 PM
Would that more parents find out what their child is being taught. This applies to Christian schools too.
I agree, but finding out if the teacher is biased requires much more than finding out what is being taught - it is more about *how* they are being taught. And it is practically very difficult, especially in high school where they might have a dozen teachers or more.

Capablanca-Fan
11-03-2008, 12:42 PM
I agree, but finding out if the teacher is biased requires much more than finding out what is being taught — it is more about *how* they are being taught. And it is practically very difficult, especially in high school where they might have a dozen teachers or more.
That is a problem with government mass-produced education. But they should find out what is in the curriculum and how (as you rightly say) it's being taught.

Igor_Goldenberg
11-03-2008, 01:53 PM
I agree, but finding out if the teacher is biased requires much more than finding out what is being taught - it is more about *how* they are being taught. And it is practically very difficult, especially in high school where they might have a dozen teachers or more.
It is indeed very difficult. Choosing the right and good education for your children is one of the most difficult task for the parent. Tough, but you have to do it. And there would be no one to blame but yourself.

Some parents want to know what happens in the school. They will find out anyway (as they do now).
Some parents don't really care. They will not care in any case.
If the choice is possible, the first group will be able to do something if they are not happy.

Capablanca-Fan
11-03-2008, 03:22 PM
It's notable that home schooling was outlawed by the Soviet state in 1919, by Hitler and Nazi Germany in 1938, and by Communist China in 1949. The leftist teachers unions want to outlaw it here and in America too. It's hardly surprising that tyrants want absolute control of the indoctrination of the children.

Kevin Bonham
11-03-2008, 08:34 PM
It's notable that home schooling was outlawed by the Soviet state in 1919, by Hitler and Nazi Germany in 1938, and by Communist China in 1949. The leftist teachers unions want to outlaw it here and in America too. It's hardly surprising that tyrants want absolute control of the indoctrination of the children.

Yet another cardboard-cutout Reductio ad Hitlerum style non-argument from Jono. Perhaps we should also rip up the autobahns, revoke all the national parks and destroy all Volkswagens while we are at it?*

For what it's worth I generally support the legality of home schooling, subject to appropriate safeguards. Perhaps I am biased because my fields of interest bring me into contact with its successes more than its failures but it can yield excellent intellectual results and in some areas the mainstream education system is simply not up to scratch, especially not where gifted children are concerned.

I do not, however, approve of parents homeschooling children solely on account of ideological differences. The parent should have a capacity to be a good teacher and their reasons should primarily concern the child's intellectual development and/or wellbeing, as distinct from the inculcation of beliefs.

(* OK, there is probably some semi-flippant support for all these actions!)

Capablanca-Fan
11-03-2008, 09:35 PM
Yet another cardboard-cutout Reductio ad Hitlerum style non-argument from Jono. Perhaps we should also rip up the autobahns, revoke all the national parks and destroy all Volkswagens while we are at it?*
Yeah yeah, something of a difference there. :P But it's no accident that tyrants want to control what is taught to the children. Many teachers spokespeople are blatantly politicized.


For what it's worth I generally support the legality of home schooling, subject to appropriate safeguards. Perhaps I am biased because my fields of interest bring me into contact with its successes more than its failures but it can yield excellent intellectual results and in some areas the mainstream education system is simply not up to scratch, especially not where gifted children are concerned.
Yeah, exactly. There is a regression to the mean. And teachers of mediocre ability are often jealous of bright kids. And even so-called gifted programs don't extend the kids but just give them "busy work".


I do not, however, approve of parents homeschooling children solely on account of ideological differences.
I approve of parental choice. They should not be forced to send their kids to ideological indoctrination by the teachers unions, to be forced to watch alGore's agitprop as if it were gospel truth, hear how evil John Howard was, and how America and Australia are the fount of evil in the world.


The parent should have a capacity to be a good teacher
According to whom? The same people who certify schoolteachers after making them go through mickey-mouse teaching courses?


and their reasons should primarily concern the child's intellectual development and/or wellbeing, as distinct from the inculcation of beliefs.
This should not be the concern of the government, any more than their choice of church, synagogue or Darwin shrine.

TheJoker
11-03-2008, 10:47 PM
Read my yesterday post. Bias is impossible to remove. It can be balanced by choice of different alternatives.
Personally, I prefer parents to choose the bias rather then the bureaucrat.

Why not an option that exposes children to as many political biases as possible.

Capablanca-Fan
12-03-2008, 01:37 AM
Why not an option that exposes children to as many political biases as possible.
That rules out the government schools then. :wall:

TheJoker
12-03-2008, 11:12 AM
That rules out the government schools then. :wall:

Probably rules out 99% of all schools (including home schooling) as no doubt they all have a political bias of one sort or another.

Doesn't mean the problem can't be solved by introducing the students to a wider range of political viewpoints.

Do you support introducing children to a wide range of political viewpoints (and religious for that matter)?

Capablanca-Fan
12-03-2008, 11:40 AM
Probably rules out 99% of all schools (including home schooling) as no doubt they all have a political bias of one sort or another.
But there wouldn't be any squabble if parents were not forced to pay for indoctrination contrary to their values.


Doesn't mean the problem can't be solved by introducing the students to a wider range of political viewpoints.
Parents could decide that.


Do you support introducing children to a wide range of political viewpoints (and religious for that matter)?
Yes.

But I support parents deciding what's best for their own children, not governments decreeing that kids should be exposed to certain viewpoints.

We don't have the government decreeing what parents must feed their kids. But we can prosecute parents for malnourished kids. but this is not necessary for the vast majority of parents. But one could see the Anointed deciding that the few malnourished kids constitute a "crisis", and the answer is government decrees on what parents must feed their kids. Silly, huh? but this is basically how the government justifies its monopoly on education.

And here was I thinking that you didn't like monopolies, cartels and price-fixing ...

TheJoker
12-03-2008, 12:03 PM
But there wouldn't be any squabble if parents were not forced to pay for indoctrination contrary to their values.

Yes there would, what if parents chooses values that are not socially acceptable (racist, extremist etc)



Yes.

So considering your children are home schooled what sort of diveristy in religous and political viewpoints do you teach.

Do your children study the bible as part of their education?

Capablanca-Fan
12-03-2008, 12:56 PM
Yes there would, what if parents chooses values that are not socially acceptable (racist, extremist etc)
It's ironic, because Hitler used the public school system to indoctrinate kids into extremist racist ideas.

Once again, you're "what if?" is addressed by the analogy with food. We don't need to regulate what parents feed their kids just because a few will feed them nothing but junk food. We punish the extremists in malnourishing children, and same for extremists in maleducation.

"Not socially acceptable" could be used to ban theistic (or atheistic) religious teaching, so it's far too broad. And I argue that affirmative action is racist, and it is by the normal definition of racism as treating groups differently on account of race.

I advise Christian parents to teach their kids widely about the existence of other religions and not shelter them, but also give them good answers.

The Bible should be part of education. The KJV and Shakespeare are two of the biggest influences on modern English, and many of the great speeches, institutions and movements would be incomprehensible without it. MLK used many biblical allusions in his speeches, e.g. “Let justice rolldown like waters and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream”, in his famous I Have a Dream speech, comes from Amos. And MLK expected that his hearers would know that.

Kevin Bonham
12-03-2008, 02:35 PM
I approve of parental choice. They should not be forced to send their kids to ideological indoctrination by the teachers unions, to be forced to watch alGore's agitprop as if it were gospel truth, hear how evil John Howard was, and how America and Australia are the fount of evil in the world.

If their reason for declining to send their kids to a system where they might encounter a degree of this sort of "indoctrination" is that they have some other form of more heavy-handed "indoctrination" they prefer then the argument for "parental choice" becomes an argument against exposing a child to a wider range of views. Especially since under the existing system, if a parent of a schooled child feels their child is indoctrinated, then they can provide a counter-argument themselves. But if a parent of a home-schooled child provides the indoctrination, where will the counter-argument come from?


According to whom? The same people who certify schoolteachers after making them go through mickey-mouse teaching courses?

If the certification is mickey-mouse then it won't be too hard for remotely bright parents to pass it.


This should not be the concern of the government, any more than their choice of church, synagogue or Darwin shrine.

I do believe it is the legitimate concern of the government if a child's education is being adversely affected by a parent who wants to keep the child out of mainstream education to prevent them from being taught certain views. Or if a child's education is being adversely affected by a parent who wants to keep the child home for any other reason for that matter.

What to do about the case where a child is kept home for ideological reasons but the parent is actually an effective teacher of basic skills is a different question. Probably in this case one can just hope the child uses that skill base to figure it out for themselves when they are older.

Capablanca-Fan
12-03-2008, 03:15 PM
Especially since under the existing system, if a parent of a schooled child feels their child is indoctrinated, then they can provide a counter-argument themselves.
Meanwhile, they are being coerced to subsidise the indoctrination. And they have already told their child that the teacher is in loco parentis (not in those words), and the child is in school for 6 boring hours a day, 5 days a week.


But if a parent of a home-schooled child provides the indoctrination, where will the counter-argument come from?
What business is it of yours? This question also presuppose that homeschoolers are isolated from other families, sports groups, etc.


If the certification is mickey-mouse then it won't be too hard for remotely bright parents to pass it.
Mickey mouse is quite different from the inclination of parents to waste time and energy going through this mickey-mouse but time-consuming chore.


I do believe it is the legitimate concern of the government if a child's education is being adversely affected by a parent who wants to keep the child out of mainstream education to prevent them from being taught certain views.
Yes, just as it is the concern if a child is malnourished or abused. But this doesn't mean that we need laws about what food groups parents must include in their child's diet, or what disciplinary methods are proscribed.

This was already covered in A Libertarian Solution to Evolution Education Controversy: No More Public Schools (http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/01/a-libertarian-s.html)by Brandon Keim 23 January 2008


What to do about the case where a child is kept home for ideological reasons but the parent is actually an effective teacher of basic skills is a different question. Probably in this case one can just hope the child uses that skill base to figure it out for themselves when they are older.
Yeah, exactly.

Kevin Bonham
12-03-2008, 03:45 PM
Meanwhile, they are being coerced to subsidise the indoctrination. And they have already told their child that the teacher is in loco parentis (not in those words), and the child is in school for 6 boring hours a day, 5 days a week.

It's one thing for parents to teach their children to obey their teacher but any parent who teaches their child to assume the teacher is always 100% right is a fool.

To give an example, when I was in grade two I had a particularly stupid and unpleasant teacher within the state school system, who at one point asked the class what one divided by zero was, and insisted that it was zero. I disagreed and got into an argument with the teacher about it. When I reported this to my father he agreed with me that the teacher was wrong and wrote the teacher a letter explaining why she was wrong.


What business is it of yours?

The business it is of everyone's is that if one is taking a libertarian position then one is supporting the right of adults to make their own choices about what they do. But that position is pointless for an adult who has been denied the ability to make those choices by a past of one-sided brainwashing (either left or right), unless they have also been given the intellectual equipment to overcome it.


This question also presuppose that homeschoolers are isolated from other families, sports groups, etc.

No it doesn't. There is just no guarantee that a child will receive a wide range of views from those other groups. Many families tend to move in circles with similar views to their own and sports groups are hardly the place where big issues are thrashed out.


Mickey mouse is quite different from the inclination of parents to waste time and energy going through this mickey-mouse but time-consuming chore.

Does it have to be time-consuming? Aptitude tests now and then would be sufficient.


This was already covered in A Libertarian Solution to Evolution Education Controversy: No More Public Schools (http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/01/a-libertarian-s.html)by Brandon Keim 23 January 2008

And even that piece supports "extreme case laws".

Capablanca-Fan
12-03-2008, 04:23 PM
It's one thing for parents to teach their children to obey their teacher but any parent who teaches their child to assume the teacher is always 100% right is a fool.
That's not the point. The child is still told to respect the teacher's knowledge.


To give an example, when I was in grade two I had a particularly stupid and unpleasant teacher within the state school system, who at one point asked the class what one divided by zero was, and insisted that it was zero. I disagreed and got into an argument with the teacher about it. When I reported this to my father he agreed with me that the teacher was wrong and wrote the teacher a letter explaining why she was wrong.
By coincidence, I also had a particularly stupid and unpleasant teacher in what would now be called grade 6 who also doggedly insisted that 3/0 = 3.


The business it is of everyone's is that if one is taking a libertarian position then one is supporting the right of adults to make their own choices about what they do. But that position is pointless for an adult who has been denied the ability to make those choices by a past of one-sided brainwashing (either left or right), unless they have also been given the intellectual equipment to overcome it.
Just as with feeding, it's reasonable to assume that parents have the most at stake in doing the best for their own kids, rather than a government decree of what's best.


No it doesn't. There is just no guarantee that a child will receive a wide range of views from those other groups. Many families tend to move in circles with similar views to their own and sports groups are hardly the place where big issues are thrashed out.
Still more more likely to get alternative views than in the government schools.


Does it have to be time-consuming? Aptitude tests now and then would be sufficient.
It should be, but then it should be good enough for highschool teachers as well. But you would not be considered qualified to teach highschool biology, and I wouldn't be to teach highschool chemistry, despite being much better qualified in the subjects than the typical highschool teacher.


And even that piece supports "extreme case laws".
Of course, but not overarching laws decreeing what parents must feed their kids.

Kevin Bonham
12-03-2008, 04:38 PM
Just as with feeding, it's reasonable to assume that parents have the most at stake in doing the best for their own kids, rather than a government decree of what's best.

I think this is actually a very dubious assumption. Some parents are more interested in populating the planet with ideological carbon-copies of themselves than in whether that is in the child's best interests or furthers the child's ability to find their own path.


Still more more likely to get alternative views than in the government schools.

But being in a government school generally forces a child to mix with others from a wide range of value and religious backgrounds, even if they are only other children.

I do have some concerns about ideological bias in state education. Although it is easily overstated, I quite often notice signs that the green lobby has more of a foot in the door than it deserves, for example.


It should be, but then it should be good enough for highschool teachers as well.

Actually I had in mind aptitude tests for the student as an indicator of how the parent is going. I suspect trying to test the parent's aptitude is a lot more difficult, so judge them by their results.

Capablanca-Fan
12-03-2008, 05:10 PM
I think this is actually a very dubious assumption. Some parents are more interested in populating the planet with ideological carbon-copies of themselves than in whether that is in the child's best interests or furthers the child's ability to find their own path.
Better the parents than leftist teachers unionists trying to generate ideological clones with other people's kids.


But being in a government school generally forces a child to mix with others from a wide range of value and religious backgrounds, even if they are only other children.
Actually it's the homeschoolers who have a wider mix. The government school system forces kids into unnatural age-segregated herds. Peer pressure tends to breed more conformity.


I do have some concerns about ideological bias in state education. Although it is easily overstated, I quite often notice signs that the green lobby has more of a foot in the door than it deserves, for example.
For sure. So does the black armband view, deconstructionism, partisan politics.


Actually I had in mind aptitude tests for the student as an indicator of how the parent is going. I suspect trying to test the parent's aptitude is a lot more difficult, so judge them by their results.
Don't mind that. Indeed, homeschoolers tend to do well in such things, as well as things like spelling bees. And as long as they are learning to read, write, add up to start with, then when older know real geography, literature, history and science, that's good evidence that they are not being educationally malnourished.

Kevin Bonham
12-03-2008, 05:17 PM
Better the parents than leftist teachers unionists trying to generate ideological clones with other people's kids.

I think they are a lot more likely to fail.


Actually it's the homeschoolers who have a wider mix. The government school system forces kids into unnatural age-segregated herds. Peer pressure tends to breed more conformity.

I don't know what age-segregation has to do with exposure to values differences.


Don't mind that. Indeed, homeschoolers tend to do well in such things, as well as things like spelling bees. And as long as they are learning to read, write, add up to start with, then when older know real geography, literature, history and science, that's good evidence that they are not being educationally malnourished.

I agree, though my view of what is real history and science appears to be a little different to yours on certain issues. :lol:

Capablanca-Fan
12-03-2008, 06:36 PM
I think they are a lot more likely to fail.
One wonders, considering the leftist mobs who howl down conservative speakers on American campuses, while applauding Iran's holocaust-denying president.


I agree, though my view of what is real history and science appears to be a little different to yours on certain issues. :lol:
Heh ;) Maybe not in chemistry, physics, the Greeks and Romans, the Norman conquest, Australia's succession of prime ministers ...

Capablanca-Fan
14-03-2008, 06:06 PM
I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer. — Ben Franklin

pax
14-03-2008, 06:10 PM
..while applauding Iran's holocaust-denying president.
Nobody applauded Ahmedinejad on the Columbus campus. On the other hand the new government of Iraq embraced him with open arms..

Capablanca-Fan
14-03-2008, 06:17 PM
Nobody applauded Ahmedinejad on the Columbus campus.
Oh yes they did. They didn't like the boorish way the uni president attacked him before the speech. Yet the uni was prepared to host this Holocaust denier but not a conservative speaker from say the Minutemen.


On the other hand the new government of Iraq embraced him with open arms.
Blame GWB for not doing a MacArthur and telling Iraq the constitution they were going to have. This is a corollary of his not understanding his own history, where the Founding Fathers opposed democracy as the tyranny of the majority, and their predecessors in Great Britain that made it a free country before it was a democratic one. Iraq was made a democracy before the essential constitutional safeguards were in place, as was Gaza. But then, also blame cultural relativistic lefties who don't think western constitutional democratic institutions are superior to the Japanese warrior culture or Islamofascism.

TheJoker
14-03-2008, 08:58 PM
The Bible should be part of education.

I agree as should be the Koran, Bhagavad Gita and other religious texts As well as all the major relgions themselves.

Just as a economics class might include the theories of Friedman, Hayek, Keynes, Stiglitz, Sachs and Sen etc.

Diversity of material is key to learning how to think critically; especially conflicting material.

It would be interesting to know whether a greater influence on the indoctrination of a particular value set has more to do with the demographics and backgrounds of the students and their families than those of the teachers. I think other students have a far greater influence than teachers whenit comes to values.

I mean despite this so-called Ultra-Left indoctrination by educators , the youth of today seem to be more materialistic and consumer focused than past generations, yet at the same time more socially aware.

I think what the past generations we always think that the past methods were better, when invfact almost always the opposite it true. I think alot of parent resent the fact that their children are discussing social and political issues at school beause it represents a depature from the parrot fashion maths, english, science and history we went through.

Capablanca-Fan
15-03-2008, 12:50 AM
I agree as should be the Koran, Bhagavad Gita and other religious texts As well as all the major relgions themselves.
Yet the Bible is more important for understanding Australian history.


Just as a economics class might include the theories of Friedman, Hayek, Keynes, Stiglitz, Sachs and Sen etc.
OK.


Diversity of material is key to learning how to think critically; especially conflicting material.
I can agree with that, and have said so publicly (http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/2891/#dogmatism).

But it's not up to the government do decide the level of diversification, any more than its job to decree the nature of a varied diet that parents must feed their kids.


I mean despite this so-called Ultra-Left indoctrination by educators , the youth of today seem to be more materialistic and consumer focused than past generations, yet at the same time more socially aware.
Hardly "so-called" when leading teachers' unionists were fuming about how teachers didn't do their job properly when Howard was elected for the fourth time.


I think what the past generations we always think that the past methods were better, when invfact almost always the opposite it true. I think alot of parent resent the fact that their children are discussing social and political issues at school beause it represents a depature from the parrot fashion maths, english, science and history we went through.
You mean when children actually learned how to read and write, use correct spelling and grammar, how to multiply two single-digit numbers, know where the main world capitals are, who Australia's first prime minister was, realise that the sun has a million times the volume of earth, that acidic = pH<7 ...

Homeschooling parents can make sure that their kids actually learn things, rather than be guinea pigs for the latest educratic fad.

Now it's a case of taking valuable lesson time to learn how evil white men are, writing abusive letters to Coalition politicians and conservative columnists, joining protest marches ...

TheJoker
15-03-2008, 10:48 AM
Yet the Bible is more important for understanding Australian history.

Possibly but in the current environment of rapid globalisation, understanding other cultures and religions is equally as important understanding our own.


Hardly "so-called" when leading teachers' unionists were fuming about how teachers didn't do their job properly when Howard was elected for the fourth time.

This says absolutly nothing about indoctrination of values, the majority of teachers may well have a left-wing agenda, it does not mean that the have successfully caused the student population to have a left wing identity, in fact my own personal experience says otherwise.



You mean when children actually learned how to read and write, use correct spelling and grammar, how to multiply two single-digit numbers, know where the main world capitals are, who Australia's first prime minister was, realise that the sun has a million times the volume of earth, that acidic = pH<7 ...

Some of those thing are becoming less important, for example spelling and grammar, the technology has shifted the majoirty of work is done using computers and word processors which can detect and correct spelling and grammar mistake. It is only natural therefore that less time would invested by student in learning these things. As calculators have made memorising mulitplication tables largely irrelevant. Its called changing with the environment.


Homeschooling parents can make sure that their kids actually learn things, rather than be guinea pigs for the latest educratic fad.

Homeschooling methods could also be laregly outdated or inefficient, the penny drops both ways.

Capablanca-Fan
15-03-2008, 02:00 PM
Possibly but in the current environment of rapid globalisation, understanding other cultures and religions is equally as important understanding our own.
Our own country comes first. But if parents want their kids taught these other cultures and religions, they should be free to teach them. The government is in no position to decide what's important. See also Should Government Run Churches … or Schools? (http://www.fff.org/comment/com0212o.asp) by Scott McPherson, December 27, 2002, which concludes:


Naturally, the question of standards will arise. Government education isn’t perfect, its defenders will say, but at least it has standards that students must meet. Besides the obvious sophistry in that position, who is to say there will be no standards in free-market education? The government doesn’t set standards in the computer industry, which is well known for its innovation, flexibility, and steadily falling prices. Shoppers pick from a wide array of options — Apple, MacIntosh, Microsoft, Linux; and they buy cheap, expensive, or somewhere in between. Standards are set by those best positioned to judge — consumers.

And the poor? In America anyone can walk through the doors of any church on any street in any city, donate as much or as little as he wants, and benefit from what is offered. No one asks if you can afford to pay for the sermon. And if you don’t like that particular church, you can take up a pew elsewhere.

Such is the choice we face today: Do we continue to run our failing schools by bureaucratic mandate, or do we embrace the quality and diversity of the free market and the voluntary charity of a free society? It’s time our schools were run like our churches. Our ancestors separated church and state, and everyone benefited. It's time for us to build on what they accomplished and separate school and state.


This says absolutly nothing about indoctrination of values, the majority of teachers may well have a left-wing agenda,
Certainly the unionists do.


it does not mean that the have successfully caused the student population to have a left wing identity, in fact my own personal experience says otherwise.
That is precisely what some leading teachers unionists lamented, and urged that they try harder. But why should parents pay for leftist indoctrination?


Some of those thing are becoming less important, for example spelling and grammar, the technology has shifted the majoirty of work is done using computers and word processors which can detect and correct spelling and grammar mistake.
There was a trend away from all these well before computers could easily do these things. And any writer knows not to rely too much on the computers except for typos.


It is only natural therefore that less time would invested by student in learning these things. As calculators have made memorising mulitplication tables largely irrelevant. Its called changing with the environment.
Kids should leave school able to do simple mental arithmetic. A calculator will not always be handy.


Homeschooling methods could also be laregly outdated or inefficient, the penny drops both ways.
You mean, they don't follow the unproven educratic fats that government schools indlict upon kids? Homeschoolers often see no need to change what clearly worked for generations in favour of fads like away-with-grammar, look-and-guess "whole language" crap.

Anyway, let the market decide. Homeschoolers tend to learn pretty well. And they haven't got the peer pressure and bullying, which is what "socialization" often means.

TheJoker
17-03-2008, 09:32 AM
So you basically agree that the students are not coming out of school with a noticeable leftist identity. And considering you feel that there is an attempt to indoctrinate them, they must be developing critical thinking skills in order that they have chosen to reject such indoctrination. So one could say that the system seems to be achieving its underlying goal "to teach the students how to think critically".

If the student outcomes don't indicate a leftist identity, then there is little cause for concern, and our energy would be better spent dealing with more pressing issues in education, the ones that actually affect the student outcomes.

Capablanca-Fan
17-03-2008, 12:27 PM
So you basically agree that the students are not coming out of school with a noticeable leftist identity.
More likely, esperience in the real world shows that leftism is a crock.


And considering you feel that there is an attempt to indoctrinate them, they must be developing critical thinking skills in order that they have chosen to reject such indoctrination.
More likely, the cognitive dissonance when they have some real world experience forces them to realise that leftism is wrong. But if they end up in areas insulated from the real world, such as newsrooms and government educational institutions and bureaucracies, they may never shake this false belief.


So one could say that the system seems to be achieving its underlying goal "to teach the students how to think critically".
That is a crock too, since they don't provide the information on which to think critically. More likely, "critical thinking" means analysing (sensu latissimo) everything under the PC trinity of race, class and gender.


If the student outcomes don't indicate a leftist identity, then there is little cause for concern, and our energy would be better spent dealing with more pressing issues in education, the ones that actually affect the student outcomes.
Like learning how to read, write and add up! No going on protest marches or writing emotional letters with atrocious spelling and grammar to conserrvative columnists.

One reason for the popularity of private schools and homeschooling is precisely that parents want their kids to learn!

pax
17-03-2008, 01:05 PM
More likely, esperience in the real world shows that leftism is a crock.

That's a laugh, since the whole universe is on your left.

Capablanca-Fan
17-03-2008, 01:11 PM
That's a laugh, since the whole universe is on your left.
The joke is on you, because I was using the term leftism as commonly understood. Surveys have constantly shown that academics and journalists are way to the left of the general public.

Southpaw Jim
17-03-2008, 09:26 PM
Surveys have constantly shown that academics and journalists are way to the left of the general public.
Which ones?

Capablanca-Fan
18-03-2008, 01:18 AM
Which ones?

Three political science professors, Robert Lichter of George Mason University, Stanley Rothman of Smith College and Neil Nevitte of the University of Toronto, surveyed 1,643 full-time faculty at 183 four-year schools, in their paper “Politics and Professional Advancement Among College Faculty (http://www.bepress.com/forum/vol3/iss1/art2/)”, The Forum 3(1). They found that 72% of teachers describe themselves as liberal, but only 15% are conservative. Only 31% describe themselves as regular churchgoers (and that’s any sort of church). 84% are in favour of abortion rights, and 67% said homosexual behaviour is acceptable. The abstract says:


This article first examines the ideological composition of American university faculty and then tests whether ideological homogeneity has become self-reinforcing. A randomly based national survey of 1643 faculty members from 183 four-year colleges and universities finds that liberals and Democrats outnumber conservatives and Republicans by large margins, and the differences are not limited to elite universities or to the social sciences and humanities. A multivariate analysis finds that, even after taking into account the effects of professional accomplishment, along with many other individual characteristics, conservatives and Republicans teach at lower quality schools than do liberals and Democrats. This suggests that complaints of ideologically-based discrimination in academic advancement deserve serious consideration and further study. The analysis finds similar effects based on gender and religiosity, i.e., women and practicing Christians teach at lower quality schools than their professional accomplishments would predict.

Lichter, Lichter and Rothman published an earlier surveys of the political and social beliefs of producers, editors, writers, and staff in the television industry. One account of their survey and others says:


But the most significant findings concern political beliefs: 54 per cent of the journalists described their views as left of center, 29 per cent as “middle of the road”, and only 17 per cent as right of center. This ratio of more than three liberal journalists for each conservative contrasts sharply with the distribution among the American public: every relevant poll conducted in the decade from 1975 to 1985 found conservatives outnumbering liberals in the electorate, often by a ratio of three to two or more.

...

For example, in a 1985 survey, conducted by the Los Angeles Times, of 2,703 reporters and editors at 621 daily newspapers, 55 per cent described their views as liberal, 17 per cent as conservative.

Similarly, in a 1988 survey, commissioned by the American Society of Newspaper Editors, of 1,200 reporters at 72 randomly selected newspapers, 62 per cent of the respondents said they were "Democrat or liberal" or leaning that way, compared to only 22 per cent who described themselves as "Republican or conservative" or so inclined.

At least five major studies have asked various samples of journalists how they had voted in one or more presidential elections between 1964 and 1988. Across all of these studies, the highest level of support recorded for a Republican candidate is 26 per cent (for Ronald Reagan in 1984 [i.e. when he absolutely splattered Mondale who won only his home state]).

Finally, a 1992 poll of 1,410 journalists from a wide variety of print and broadcast organizations provides clear evidence that journalists are becoming more liberal. Conducted by Indiana University professors David Weaver and Cleveland Wilhoit, the survey found that the number of journalists who identified themselves as Democrats had grown from 35.5 per cent in 1971 to 44.1 per cent in 1992, while the number of Republicans had declined from 25.7 per cent to 16.3 per cent. As the authors note, much of this change is the result of widespread efforts to foster "diversity" in the newsroom. Because female and minority journalists tend to be even more liberal and Democratic than white male journalists, increases in demographic diversity have actually produced substantial decreases in political diversity.

Miguel
18-03-2008, 01:42 AM
Three political science professors, Robert Lichter of George Mason University, Stanley Rothman of Smith College and Neil Nevitte of the University of Toronto, surveyed 1,643 full-time faculty at 183 four-year schools, in their paper “Politics and Professional Advancement Among College Faculty (http://www.bepress.com/forum/vol3/iss1/art2/)”, The Forum 3(1).
Hide the Republicans, the Christians, and the Women: A Response to "Politics and Professional Advancement Among College Faculty" (http://www.bepress.com/forum/vol3/iss2/art7/)

Do conservatives suffer discrimination in academe? In "Politics and Professional Advancement Among College Faculty," Rothman, Lichter, and Nevitte argue that "conservatives and Republicans teach at lower quality schools than do liberals and Democrats." Using a survey of 1643 faculty members from 183 four-year colleges and universities, they conclude that their results are "consistent with the hypothesis that political conservatism confers a disadvantage in the competition for political advancement." In this response, we show that Rothman, Lichter, and Nevitte’s work is plagued by theoretical and methodological problems that render their conclusions unsustainable by the available evidence. Furthermore, we offer an alternative hypothesis theoretically consistent with their findings. Unfortunately, we were unable to subject our alternative hypothesis to empirical assessment (or even to replicate the initial results of Rothman, Lichter and Nevitte) since they have refused to make their data available to the scientific community.

Capablanca-Fan
18-03-2008, 08:41 AM
From Fundamentals and Fundamentalists: A Reply to Ames et al. (http://www.bepress.com/forum/vol3/iss2/art8)
Stanley Rothman, Smith College
S. Robert Lichter, Center of Media and Public Affairs
Neil Nevitte, University of Toronto

The Forum 3(2), Article 8.


First, ABBC argue that there is no theoretical justification for our argument that ideological orientation influences professional advancement. It is "difficult even to imagine" discrimination in hiring, because departments have "no idea" (their emphasis) of the candidate's politics. Further, we also found discrimination against women, and it "defies reason" that liberal academics would be biased against women. Finally, our argument leads to the "absurd" conclusion that discrimination increases as institutional quality improves.

We think the Pittsburgh profs protest too much. Their first point brings to mind the old line about the postmodernist who admits, "yes, it works in practice, but will it work in theory?" They are shocked, shocked (our emphasis) to hear that anyone, apart from the odd political scientist, would know or care to know about a job candidate's ideological predispositions. They clearly haven't attended a Modern Language Association convention recently. (We will spare readers examples of the jargon-laden and politicized paper titles that provide annual merriment for journalists, while demonstrating how ideologized an ostensibly non-political discipline can become.)

Nor, for that matter, is ideology irrelevant to hires and tenure decisions in psychology, anthropology, philosophy, or other fields of the humanities and social sciences which have incorporated politically-laden content about class, race and gender into their disciplines. Many disciplines in the hard sciences also contain subfields with politically controversial components, such as those dealing with the environmental conditions and health risks.

Remember, our argument is not that there is some vast conspiracy against conservatives throughout academia; merely that overall, with achievement controlled, liberals have a statistically greater chance of reaching the top tiers of the profession. This could easily occur on the basis of a widely distributed pattern of occasional instances, without there being either a conscious intention to discriminate or a strong pattern in the hires or promotions of any individual department. Indeed, there may be many institutions in which no discrimination occurs and some in which conservatives discriminate against liberal faculty. We are discussing overall tendencies and statistically significant differences, not absolutes.

If we try to surmount the difficulty of imagining how a candidate's ideology can sometimes be discerned, we might examine her CV, her publications, the reputations of her advisors, references, and granting agencies. Increasingly, personal information can also be gleaned by examining her blog or personal web sites and by Googling her to pick up any stray comment that wandered into the Internet. There are also "lifestyle" cues that are associated with liberal cosmopolitans, on one hand, and cultural conservatives, on the other, down to the make of car one drives, the clothing one wears, and one's use of language. Such factors often lead to inferences about attitudes and behavior. (2) Indeed both political parties invest heavily...

TheJoker
18-03-2008, 08:57 AM
One reason for the popularity of private schools and homeschooling is precisely that parents want their kids to learn!

Homeschooling is not popular in this country. In fact I think it would be fair to say that it is extremely unpopular.

Capablanca-Fan
18-03-2008, 09:26 AM
Homeschooling is not popular in this country. In fact I think it would be fair to say that it is extremely unpopular.
Private schools are undisputably popular, and homeschooling is growing.

Capablanca-Fan
18-03-2008, 09:27 AM
“The sub-prime mortgage collapse is another tale of unintended consequences. The crisis has its roots in the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, a Carter-era law that purported to prevent ‘redlining’ —denying mortgages to black borrowers—by pressuring banks to make home loans in ‘low- and moderate-income neighborhoods.’ Under the act, banks were to be graded on their attentiveness to the ‘credit needs’ of ‘predominantly minority neighborhoods.’...[T]o earn high ratings, banks were forced to make increasingly risky loans to borrowers who wouldn’t qualify for a mortgage under normal standards of creditworthiness. The CRA, made even more stringent during the Clinton administration, trapped lenders in a Catch-22. ‘If they comply,’ wrote Loyola College economist Thomas DiLorenzo, ‘they know they will have to suffer from more loan defaults. If they don’t comply, they face financial penalties... which can cost a large corporation like Bank of America billions of dollars.’ Banks nationwide thus ended up making more and more ‘sub-prime’ loans and agreeing to dangerously lax underwriting standards—no down payment, no verification of income, interest-only payment plans, weak credit history. If they tried to compensate for the higher risks they were taking by charging higher interest rates, they were accused of unfairly steering borrowers into ‘predatory’ loans they couldn’t afford. Trapped in a no-win situation entirely of the government’s making, lenders could only hope that home prices would continue to rise, staving off the inevitable collapse. But once the housing bubble burst, there was no escape. Mortgage lenders have been bankrupted, thousands of sub-prime homeowners have been foreclosed on, and countless would-be borrowers can no longer get credit. The financial fallout has hurt investors around the world. And all of it thanks to the government, which was sure it understood the credit industry better than the free market did, and confidently created the conditions that made disaster unavoidable.” —Jeff Jacoby

Igor_Goldenberg
18-03-2008, 09:27 AM
Homeschooling is not popular in this country. In fact I think it would be fair to say that it is extremely unpopular.
They why should it be prohibited?

It is interesting to notice that supporters of state interventions (aka lefties) want to either support something or prohibit something, without understanding that everyone has to choose what (s)he thinks is right to him/her (and their children)
According to the historical folklore, when powerful French finance minister Colbert (of Lui XiV) asked group of merchant how the government can help them, he received a reply "Laissez-nous faire" (leave us alone, let us do it). That's something statists cannot understand, government should neither discourage no encourage, leave it to the people.

TheJoker
18-03-2008, 09:53 AM
They why should it be prohibited?

Didn't say it should be prohibited!!!

Just pointing that Jono's statement that homeschooling is popular does not apply to Australia.

pax
18-03-2008, 09:56 AM
They why should it be prohibited?
Nobody has argued that it should be..

pax
18-03-2008, 10:00 AM
“The sub-prime mortgage collapse is another tale of unintended consequences. The crisis has its roots in the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, a Carter-era law that purported to prevent ‘redlining’ —denying mortgages to black borrowers—by pressuring banks to make home loans in ‘low- and moderate-income neighborhoods.’
This is a complete crock. How can a 30 year old law have caused a meltdown now? The fact is that the banks were falling over themselves to offer subprime loans in order to take advantage of ludicrously low wholesale interest rates - they were never "forced" to offer these ridiculous loans. Whether you think the Government was to blame for the ludicrously low interest rates that sparked the whole thing is another matter....

TheJoker
18-03-2008, 10:56 AM
Jacoby is another conservative columnist who writes opinion pieces and a known libertarian. Hardly surprising he would place the blame for the sub-prime crisis on the government.

What he fails to point out is that the national banks lobbied against state governments attempts to reduce the sub-prime market.

Financial Institutions were also offering incentives to enter in ARMs with "teaser rates" etc. So it is pretty hard to argue that they were forced into providing sub-prime loans when thay were activley encouraging their growth.

The other thing Jacoby fails to mention is that the securitisation of the sub-prime loans (75% were securitised) transeffered the risk to third-party investors. Since they were not carrying the bulk of the risk and had increased capital from the sale of the MBS banks could continue to expand the sub-prime market so long as investors were willing to put their faith in mortage backed securities.

Also to blame are the borrower's and whoever gave them their financial advice (if they bothered to get any).

Putting the bulk of the blame on the government just shows Jacoby's ignorance of the complexity of the issue.

Capablanca-Fan
18-03-2008, 01:13 PM
This is a complete crock. How can a 30 year old law have caused a meltdown now?
Come off it. Often these laws take some time to work. Indeed, that is why democratic processes can result in bad economics: the law will get politicians votes in the short term, while the consequences take far longer to surface.


The fact is that the banks were falling over themselves to offer subprime loans in order to take advantage of ludicrously low wholesale interest rates - they were never "forced" to offer these ridiculous loans.
According to Jacoby, they were forced to by government penalties. Sometimes these penalties take the form of differential subsidies. This goes to show that governments should not get invovled in the economy.


Whether you think the Government was to blame for the ludicrously low interest rates that sparked the whole thing is another matter....
The US or ours? Our interest rates are set independently of the government. It seems that our reserve bank is behaving more sensibly by raising rates, the opposite of its US counterpart.

pax
18-03-2008, 01:24 PM
The US or ours?
US

Our interest rates are set independently of the government.
As they are in the US.

It seems that our reserve bank is behaving more sensibly by raising rates, the opposite of its US counterpart.
Yes, however the conditions here have been considerably different to the US. However there are some signs that Australian growth is beginning to slow, and that inflation is starting to rise in the US. So there is a danger of both countries entering a period of low growth, high inflation (stagflation) which would be a recipe for complete economic meltdown.

Capablanca-Fan
18-03-2008, 01:26 PM
Jacoby is another conservative columnist who writes opinion pieces and a known libertarian. Hardly surprising he would place the blame for the sub-prime crisis on the government.
Of course not; he is sensible, unlike you lefties with such faith in the ability of government to run the economy better than the free market can.


What he fails to point out is that the national banks lobbied against state governments attempts to reduce the sub-prime market.
Be more specific. When Australia capped home loan rates, banks became far more selective in their choice of borrowers, causing a shortage in ability to obtain loans.


Also to blame are the borrower's and whoever gave them their financial advice (if they bothered to get any).
Agreed. But they wouldn't have got into this situation if the government hadn't stuck its beak into the situation, and put political pressure on banks to lend to people they wouldn't have.

Putting the bulk of the blame on the government just shows Jacoby's ignorance of the complexity of the issue.[/QUOTE]
More likely, more than he could fit into a column. He is of course far from the only one who blames the government. E.g. Thomas Sowell (http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell080807.php3):


Attractive and heady phrases like "open space," "smart growth" and the like have accompanied land-use restrictions that made the cost of land rise in many places to the point it greatly exceeded the cost of the homes built on the land.

In places that resisted this political rhetoric, home prices remained reasonable, despite rising incomes and population growth. Construction costs were seldom a major factor, for there was relatively little construction in places with severe building restrictions and skyrocketing home prices.

In short, government has been the principal factor preventing the "affordable housing" that politicians talk about so much.

Politicians have also been a key factor behind pushing lenders to lend to borrowers with lower prospects of being able to repay their loans. The Community Reinvestment Act lets politicians pressure lenders to lend to people they might not lend to otherwise. The same politicians are quick to cry "exploitation" when the interest charged to high-risk borrowers reflects that risk.

The huge losses of subprime lenders, some of whom have gone bankrupt, demonstrate again the consequences of letting politicians try to micromanage the economy.

And Walter Williams (http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams012308.php3):


As with most economic problems, we find the hand of government. The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, whose provisions were strengthened during the Clinton administration, is a federal law that mandates lenders to offer credit throughout their entire market and discourages them from restricting their credit services to high-income markets, a practice known as redlining. In other words, the Community Reinvestment Act encourages banks and thrifts to make loans to riskier customers.

...

he Bush bailout, as well as Federal Reserve Bank cuts in interest rates, is a wealth transfer from creditworthy people and taxpayers to those who made ill-advised credit decisions, and that includes banks as well as borrowers. According to Temple University professor of economics William Dunkelberg, 96 percent of all mortgages are being paid on time. Thirty percent of American homeowners have no mortgage. Delinquency rates were higher in the 1980s than they are today. Only 2 to 3 percent of all mortgages are in foreclosure. The government bailout helps a few people at a huge cost to the rest of the economy.

Government policy got us into the subprime mess and government's measure to fix the mess is going to create more mess.

Capablanca-Fan
18-03-2008, 01:28 PM
It is interesting to notice that supporters of state interventions (aka lefties) want to either support something or prohibit something, without understanding that everyone has to choose what (s)he thinks is right to him/her (and their children)
According to the historical folklore, when powerful French finance minister Colbert (of Lui XiV) asked group of merchant how the government can help them, he received a reply "Laissez-nous faire" (leave us alone, let us do it). That's something statists cannot understand, government should neither discourage no encourage, leave it to the people.
An excellent reply!

Capablanca-Fan
18-03-2008, 01:29 PM
Nobody has argued that it should be..
Some have argued that it should be prohibited, or regulated to such an extent that it may as well be. E.g. parents are not 'qualified teachers', which means that they haven't been subjected to the mickey mouse teacher certification courses.

Igor_Goldenberg
18-03-2008, 01:39 PM
Also to blame are the borrower's and whoever gave them their financial advice (if they bothered to get any).
Aren't they going to be rescued by the recent bail out plan?



Putting the bulk of the blame on the government just shows Jacoby's ignorance of the complexity of the issue.
Bail outs happened before. Therefore, when everyone is rushing to take risky loans, one would think: "Well, if something goes wrong, a lot of people will be in dire circumstances. Therefore, government will bail us out somehow".
Guess what? (s)he'd right be on the money (in more then one way).

We can view it from a different angle:
Huge group of people borrow from a small group of lenders. If most of them cannot repay, they vote for the small group of lenders to carry their losses.
If it's not a "two wolves and a sheep voting what to have for a dinner", then I don't know what is.

pax
18-03-2008, 05:57 PM
Some have argued that it should be prohibited, or regulated to such an extent that it may as well be. E.g. parents are not 'qualified teachers', which means that they haven't been subjected to the mickey mouse teacher certification courses.
Who? Nobody on this board.

While I would agree that homeschooling should be regulated to ensure that some sort of minimum standards are maintained (and to ensure that kids actually are receiving an education), I would never suggest banning it.

pax
18-03-2008, 06:00 PM
Bail outs happened before. Therefore, when everyone is rushing to take risky loans, one would think: "Well, if something goes wrong, a lot of people will be in dire circumstances. Therefore, government will bail us out somehow".
Guess what? (s)he'd right be on the money (in more then one way).
Bail outs are not much of an incentive. Bear Stearns some time ago traded for something like $170 a share. The recent JP Morgan bailout was for of the order of $5 a share - not exactly an insurance payout..

Axiom
18-03-2008, 06:07 PM
Bail outs are not much of an incentive. Bear Stearns some time ago traded for something like $170 a share. The recent JP Morgan bailout was for of the order of $5 a share - not exactly an insurance payout..
$2 A share to be exact
Watch for more investment banks to go the same way , as consolidating the monopoly on the money supply continues.
Lehman Brothers maybe next.

Capablanca-Fan
18-03-2008, 10:29 PM
While I would agree that homeschooling should be regulated to ensure that some sort of minimum standards are maintained (and to ensure that kids actually are receiving an education),
No more than we need laws about what minimum standards of diet parents must give their kids, just not to malnourish them. One the government decides on what food parents must feed their kids, or insist on formal nutritionist studies, that would be the wedge to end parental freedom.


I would never suggest banning it.
Good.

TheJoker
18-03-2008, 11:45 PM
Aren't they going to be rescued by the recent bail out plan?.

Bail outs happened before. Therefore, when everyone is rushing to take risky loans, one would think: "Well, if something goes wrong, a lot of people will be in dire circumstances. Therefore, government will bail us out somehow".
Guess what? (s)he'd right be on the money (in more then one way).

Yes I dont agree with the bail out either for exactly that reason. It encourages both businesses and individuals to assume more risk.




We can view it from a different angle:
Huge group of people borrow from a small group of lenders. If most of them cannot repay, they vote for the small group of lenders to carry their losses.
If it's not a "two wolves and a sheep voting what to have for a dinner", then I don't know what is.

Do some reading on mortage securitisation you will see that the people approving the loans in most cases were not assuming the risk. A failure in the market to assess (price) the risk of sub-prime loans led to the issuing of sub-prime loans being highly profitable for banks with less risk. The reason the fallout has been so widespread is that risk was shared out amongst so many.

TheJoker
19-03-2008, 12:10 AM
Be more specific..

IIRC correctly Georgia was about to enact some predatory lending regulation, with other states to follow but the banks lobbied the OCC to have it overturned.



Agreed. But they wouldn't have got into this situation if the government hadn't stuck its beak into the situation, and put political pressure on banks to lend to people they wouldn't have.

Actually the banks were happy to keep dishing out the sub-prime loans (with heavy marketing strategies such as teaser rates) regardless. Not because the legislation required them to do so but because the securitisation of the loans made it profitable without having to assume the risk. Also the market failed to assess (price) the risk correctly.

That's not to say that government policy didn't play some role in the crisis, but it is pushing a little to fr to lay all the blame on them. Low interest rates and government policy probably created the right atmosphere a housing boom (like we saw in Australia). But the securitisation of mortages has to one of the major reasons for the resulting crisis, which by the way is a market initiative.

pax
19-03-2008, 12:16 AM
No more than we need laws about what minimum standards of diet parents must give their kids, just not to malnourish them.
As long as they can be shown to be receiving a "nutritious" education, I think that is sufficient. Showing that, however is probably not trivial (nor should it be).

Capablanca-Fan
19-03-2008, 12:22 AM
As long as they can be shown to be receiving a "nutritious" education, I think that is sufficient. Showing that, however is probably not trivial (nor should it be).
Why? Government interference is a recent phenomenon, and not for the best.

TheJoker
19-03-2008, 12:42 AM
Do homeschooled kids sit the same exams as their public/private schooled counterpart? How do they go about getting accepted into a university in Australia?

pax
19-03-2008, 09:39 AM
Why? Government interference is a recent phenomenon, and not for the best.
Because there is a possibility that some homeschooled kids will receive a woefully inadequate education, or none at all.

Igor_Goldenberg
19-03-2008, 10:22 AM
Do some reading on mortage securitisation you will see that the people approving the loans in most cases were not assuming the risk. A failure in the market to assess (price) the risk of sub-prime loans led to the issuing of sub-prime loans being highly profitable for banks with less risk. The reason the fallout has been so widespread is that risk was shared out amongst so many.
My post applied to borrowers, not lenders

Igor_Goldenberg
19-03-2008, 10:25 AM
Bail outs are not much of an incentive. Bear Stearns some time ago traded for something like $170 a share. The recent JP Morgan bailout was for of the order of $5 a share - not exactly an insurance payout..
It is just an attempt by one business to buy another business at what they think is an attractive price. It has nothing to do with government bailout, funded by taxpayers money.

Adamski
19-03-2008, 11:21 AM
Do homeschooled kids sit the same exams as their public/private schooled counterpart? How do they go about getting accepted into a university in Australia?Hi Joker, I can answer for NZ and NSW and the rest of Aus may or may not be the same (??) My wife and I homeschooled our son in NZ, where he was able to register for all external exams (as far as I recall - certainly School Cert equivalent). In NSW we discovered that at year 12 level he was not able to register for HSC as a homeschooled pupil. He ended up doing equivalent study at a local TAFE. I know the rules are tighter in QLD than NSW.

Presumably once one has HSC one can apply for an Aus Uni like anyone else. Marks would determine if you got in I guess.

Note in further defence of homeschooling that he and my wife (and when I could make it, myself) were part of a group of HS parents and children who met fortnightly. At one stage when I was between IT contracts I coached them in chess for about 2 months, starting with learning the moves! (I had some low qualification to do so - Tony Dowden would recall Gerald Williams (RIP) in Dunedin who took large numbers of children for chess on Friday nights - both play and coaching. For a few years I was one of his helpers.) One child in my NSW group went on to join a club- there may be more I do not know of. My son went to Manly chess club for a few months but got discouraged (as often happens) by losing all the time and found other interests (e.g. girls!!):)

Adamski
19-03-2008, 11:33 AM
Because there is a possibility that some homeschooled kids will receive a woefully inadequate education, or none at all. In NZ and NSW anyway, inpectors form government bodies checked out the proposed curriculum and environment for homeschooling - quite thoroughly. So it would not be possible to leave out basics (unless one lied and taught something different to what was approved.) Again not sure about how the system works in the rest of Aus. I would opose HS'ing being too regulated.

TheJoker
19-03-2008, 12:36 PM
Hi Joker, I can answer for NZ and NSW and the rest of Aus may or may not be the same (??) My wife and I homeschooled our son in NZ, where he was able to register for all external exams (as far as I recall - certainly School Cert equivalent). In NSW we discovered that at year 12 level he was not able to register for HSC as a homeschooled pupil. He ended up doing equivalent study at a local TAFE. I know the rules are tighter in QLD than NSW.

Presumably once one has HSC one can apply for an Aus Uni like anyone else. Marks would determine if you got in I guess.

Note in further defence of homeschooling that he and my wife (and when I could make it, myself) were part of a group of HS parents and children who met fortnightly. At one stage when I was between IT contracts I coached them in chess for about 2 months, starting with learning the moves! (I had some low qualification to do so - Tony Dowden would recall Gerald Williams (RIP) in Dunedin who took large numbers of children for chess on Friday nights - both play and coaching. For a few years I was one of his helpers.) One child in my NSW group went on to join a club- there may be more I do not know of. My son went to Manly chess club for a few months but got discouraged (as often happens) by losing all the time and found other interests (e.g. girls!!):)

Interesting thanks for the reply. I often wondered if they were required/allowed to sit the external exams.

pax
19-03-2008, 01:35 PM
It is just an attempt by one business to buy another business at what they think is an attractive price. It has nothing to do with government bailout, funded by taxpayers money.
It was a government assisted bailout.

pax
19-03-2008, 01:36 PM
In NZ and NSW anyway, inpectors form government bodies checked out the proposed curriculum and environment for homeschooling - quite thoroughly. So it would not be possible to leave out basics (unless one lied and taught something different to what was approved.)
Yep, and I think that's entirely appropriate. Jono apparently does not.

Adamski
19-03-2008, 01:52 PM
Yep, and I think that's entirely appropriate. Jono apparently does not.Ok, but I certainly don't favour any increase in regulation of the homeschooling environment. From what we understood from HS parents who moved from QLD to NSW, it is much harder to get approval to HS in QLD. In general, I don't favour regulation full stop unless evidently necessary (people can debate what that means - to me it's each case on it's merits). {Dear me, Gunner and Jono, I am slipping on the English language front. One correct and one incorrect use of "it's" in one bracketed clause in one sentence! It's should only be used, of course, when it's a contraction of "it is"!}

Capablanca-Fan
19-03-2008, 02:45 PM
Interesting thanks for the reply. I often wondered if they were required/allowed to sit the external exams.
In some places, the teachers unions are very opposed to them using school facilities or sitting exams. Most people think that teachers unions are looking after the best interest of the kids, but as one union leader famously said, why should we—they aren't the ones paying union dues.

pax
19-03-2008, 03:27 PM
Ok, but I certainly don't favour any increase in regulation of the homeschooling environment.
I haven't made a judgment about how much regulation is appropriate - just that there should be some.

Adamski
19-03-2008, 04:38 PM
I just saw an interesting article related to the recent discussion on the merits of homeschooling versus public education. Public schools teaching racism. See http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5657/ OK, I will try to stop thread drift now...

BTW I don't think anyone has been so crass as to claim that homeschoolers are right wing drongoes...

Kevin Bonham
19-03-2008, 04:52 PM
BTW I don't think anyone has been so crass as to claim that homeschoolers are right wing drongoes...

Most homeschoolers I have known (of a relatively small sample, of course) are leftists.

pax
19-03-2008, 04:58 PM
I just saw an interesting article related to the recent discussion on the merits of homeschooling versus public education. Public schools teaching racism. See http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5657/

It's grasping at straws. One poorly constructed diagram does not make the whole of evolutionary theory 'racist'. There are those that misuse evolution for racist ends, but their grasp of the science is about as good as the creationists' :)

Adamski
19-03-2008, 04:59 PM
Most homeschoolers I have known (of a relatively small sample, of course) are leftists.Well, Kevin, if we meet in person one day, the percentage of "righty" homeschoolers you know will increase!:) I would like to visit Tasmania sometime, and maybe the HICC (love the name!).

Capablanca-Fan
19-03-2008, 05:07 PM
It's grasping at straws. One poorly constructed diagram does not make the whole of evolutionary theory 'racist'. There are those that misuse evolution for racist ends, but their grasp of the science is about as good as the creationists' :)
These are the textbooks!!

Creationist grasp of evolutionary 'science' is fine; we just are not fooled when the NAS uses guppies turning into guppies (http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5620/#action) as proof of goo-to-you evolution and evidence against biblical creation :lol: :lol:

Aaron Guthrie
19-03-2008, 05:17 PM
I just saw an interesting article related to the recent discussion on the merits of homeschooling versus public education. Public schools teaching racism. See http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5657/ OK, I will try to stop thread drift now...Not that this is all that important, but this comment seems dubious to me.
One of the subtleties, recently pointed out to me, is the way the skin colour of the images changes from dark to light as evolution progresses.It looks to me from Homo erectus onwards they have the same skin tone. I would suggest any apparent lightening is caused by the thinning (and then sudden change to red!) of the hair.

Rincewind
19-03-2008, 05:32 PM
Not that this is all that important, but this comment seems dubious to me.It looks to me from Homo erectus onwards they have the same skin tone. I would suggest any apparent lightening is caused by the thinning (and then sudden change to red!) of the hair.

Indeed! Obviously the vikings are the most evolutionary advanced species. Seriously, as you point out, the skin tone of the various apes is difficult to see because most of them are covered with hair.

pax
19-03-2008, 06:13 PM
Not that this is all that important, but this comment seems dubious to me.It looks to me from Homo erectus onwards they have the same skin tone. I would suggest any apparent lightening is caused by the thinning (and then sudden change to red!) of the hair.
Yeah, man. Us redheads are the peak of evolution ;)

Capablanca-Fan
19-03-2008, 07:11 PM
Yeah, man. Us redheads are the peak of evolution ;)
Except for the poor grammar, as explained in this thread (http://chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=6709&page=7) :P

Capablanca-Fan
19-03-2008, 07:15 PM
Thomas Sowell documents in his book Knowledge and Decisions, p. 359 (1996):


The education of black youngsters [in the USA] was almost solely non-governmental (or even antigovernmental, in defiance of laws against their education in the antebellum south), and it was 1916 before the number of black youngsters educated in public schools equalled the number educated privately.

Rincewind
19-03-2008, 07:40 PM
First 'Rule' Of Evolution Suggests That Life Is Destined To Become More Complex (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080317171027.htm)

Axiom
21-03-2008, 01:34 AM
Schools Go Orwell: CCTV in Classrooms

YouTube
March 19, 2008
wVDUyfvpKpk


CCTV in class spies on teachers, says union
By Graeme Paton, Education Editor
Last Updated: 2:44am GMT 19/03/2008

Schools are becoming "Orwellian" societies where CCTV cameras in classrooms monitor pupil behaviour and staff performance, teachers will warn today.

UK Telegraph

Free CCTV film access for security services’
By Christopher Hope and James Kirkup
Last Updated: 6:22am GMT 19/03/2008

The security services could be given access to footage from CCTV cameras that will allow them to spy on people across the country.

There is a have your say section on the Telegraph article.

UK Telegraph

Capablanca-Fan
21-03-2008, 06:57 PM
American playwright David Mamet has just written "Why I Am No Longer a 'Brain-Dead Liberal (http://lukeford.net/blog/?p=2432)'", in which he explains his own confrontation with his changing views on the role of government and what works in society. Mamet writes:


"What about the role of government? Well, in the abstract, coming from my time and background, I thought it was a rather good thing, but tallying up the ledger in those things which affect me and in those things I observe, I am hard-pressed to see an instance where the intervention of the government led to much beyond sorrow."

TheJoker
22-03-2008, 09:06 PM
Thomas Sowell documents in his book Knowledge and Decisions, p. 359 (1996):


The education of black youngsters [in the USA] was almost solely non-governmental (or even antigovernmental, in defiance of laws against their education in the antebellum south), and it was 1916 before the number of black youngsters educated in public schools equalled the number educated privately.

And what exactly where those numbers as a percentage of the population?

Axiom
22-03-2008, 09:36 PM
American playwright David Mamet has just written "Why I Am No Longer a 'Brain-Dead Liberal (http://lukeford.net/blog/?p=2432)'", in which he explains his own confrontation with his changing views on the role of government and what works in society. Mamet writes:


"What about the role of government? Well, in the abstract, coming from my time and background, I thought it was a rather good thing, but tallying up the ledger in those things which affect me and in those things I observe, I am hard-pressed to see an instance where the intervention of the government led to much beyond sorrow."
I am ashamed to admit that when i was young and naive i too saw myself as, of the left ,pro gun control, pro socialist govt interventionist. Thinking that was the way to greater social justice both economically and otherwise.But a study of history devoid of schooling and media brainwashing along with critical observations of the world around me led me to realise i was suckered into a false paradigm, where both right and left ideologies are both totally usurped as mere instruments of the far more real and pervasive reality of elite control.
This perhaps explains my zeal, much like that of a reformed smoker or born again christian !

Basil
22-03-2008, 10:58 PM
I am ashamed to admit that when i was young and naive i too saw myself as, of the left ,pro gun control, pro socialist govt interventionist. Thinking that was the way to greater social justice both economically and otherwise.But a study of history devoid of schooling and media brainwashing along with critical observations of the world around me led me to realise i was suckered into a false paradigm...
Just leave the right self-flagellation to me and Jon and Spiny (I'm sure we'll get over it), but anyway ... can you eeer like print this out 1,000,000 times and hand it out to school-leavers. You know stand at the gates and get them and defrag them.

The world spews out millions of kiddie lefties each year - in fact it's this phenomenon that gives the left its oxygen line. If they were no such spewings, the left side of politics would have been kaput about 20 years ago - just leaving Denis (coiffing wine and intellectualising with other scholars), pax, Southpaw, a coupla werkas and some knuckle-dragging mums making up the full team!

Axiom
22-03-2008, 11:18 PM
Just leave the right self-flagellation to me and Jon and Spiny (I'm sure we'll get over it), but anyway ... can you eeer like print this out 1,000,000 times and hand it out to school-leavers. You know stand at the gates and get them and defrag them.

The world spews out millions of kiddie lefties each year - in fact it's this phenomenon that gives the left its oxygen line. If they were no such spewings, the left side of politics would have been kaput about 20 years ago - just leaving Denis (coiffing wine and intellectualising with other scholars), pax, Southpaw, a coupla werkas and some knuckle-dragging mums making up the full team! :)
Unfortunately there are just as many in the false paradigm right who likewise are mislead, by pro war propaganda, pro drug war irrationality, war on terror rubbish, issues of human liberty and the corporate run media.

Which really was my epiphany , ie. that both sides create a most unhelpful construct in furthering true human libertarian ideals.
A construct i maintain , that suits the elite establishment perfectly in ensuring their position and continued oppression of human liberty.

It is quite illustrative, given current events in tibet, that i had an identical position on the political compass as the dalai lama !

Basil
22-03-2008, 11:20 PM
:)
Unfortunately there are just as many in the false paradigm right who likewise are mislead...
I've always given you credit for having half a clue ;)

Axiom
22-03-2008, 11:27 PM
I've always given you credit for having half a clue ;)
Would that make you only having a quarter of a clue ? ;)

Basil
22-03-2008, 11:31 PM
Would that make you only having a quarter of a clue ? ;)
You can $25 HCDs for that!

Axiom
22-03-2008, 11:35 PM
You can $25 HCDs for that!
CORR! Thankyou !

(incidentally , GD, i would be interested in your opinion of the comedy series "Help" , i think you'd like it, i posted some excerpts in the brit comedy thread.)

Capablanca-Fan
23-03-2008, 02:06 PM
Four Times More Journalists Identify as Liberal Than Conservative—Study (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-baker/2008/03/19/four-times-more-journalists-identify-liberal-conservative)



Only six percent said they considered themselves conservatives and only two percent said they were very conservative. This compares with 36 percent of the overall population that describes itself as conservative. Most journalists, 53 percent, said they're moderate. 24 percent said they were liberal and eight percent very liberal.

Only 19 percent of the public consider themselves liberal. And it's not much of a leap to presume many of the 53 percent who describe themselves as “moderate” are really quite liberal.

Now there's a surprise :confused:

Miguel
24-03-2008, 08:05 AM
A survey conducted late last year and released Monday, by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, confirmed the obvious -- that compared to the views of the public, conservatives are under-represented in national journalism while liberals are over-represented.
The data indicates a difference (possibly due to self-selection). It does not indicate bias.


And it's not much of a leap to presume many of the 53 percent who describe themselves as “moderate” are really quite liberal.
Jumping to conclusions again. Sloppy.


Now there's a surprise :confused:
Conservatives exhibiting black and white thinking, now there's a surprise.

(Any special reason why you failed to mention that the survey (http://www.stateofthemedia.com/2008/journalist_survey.php?media=3) is of US journalists?)

Capablanca-Fan
24-03-2008, 01:22 PM
The data indicates a difference (possibly due to self-selection). It does not indicate bias.
Don't be a silly lefty all your life. It does give us good reason to doubt the objectivity of much of what passes for news reporting, given that so many journos are lefties.


Jumping to conclusions again. Sloppy.
Not at all. Many American politicians are very afraid of admitting that they are liberal, so call themselves "moderate". And they probably think they are. When Nixon thrashed McGovern in a landslide, one journo said she knew no-one who voted for Nixon.

Conservatives exhibiting black and white thinking, now there's a surprise.[/QUOTE]
Mainly because some things are black and white.

But it's often the liberals who exhibit categorical thinking and talk about solutions, while conservatives think incrementally about costs and benefits, and realise that there are only trade-offs.


(Any special reason why you failed to mention that the survey (http://www.stateofthemedia.com/2008/journalist_survey.php?media=3) is of US journalists?)
Because I expected people to see that for themselves. Evidently I have to spoon-feed lefties from now on.

Same applies to Australia and Britain though. The BBC recently admitted its leftist bias (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=411846&in_page_id=1770), while the ABC still hasn't got a "right-wing Phillip Adams". There have been calls in Australia to purge the few conservative commentators around, on the grounds of being out of step with a country that voted for Labor (never calls to remove lefties who were out of step with a country that voted for the Coalition in four straight elections).

Miguel
24-03-2008, 03:33 PM
Don't be a silly lefty all your life.
Oh, diddums. Does it hurt when I poke holes in your nonsense?


It does give us good reason to doubt the objectivity of much of what passes for news reporting, given that so many journos are lefties.
It might give good reason to people who see conspiracies everywhere.


Not at all. Many American politicians are very afraid of admitting that they are liberal, so call themselves "moderate". And they probably think they are. When Nixon thrashed McGovern in a landslide, one journo said she knew no-one who voted for Nixon.
Red herring.


Mainly because some things are black and white.
Especially when your world view is the One True world view.


But it's often the liberals who exhibit categorical thinking and talk about solutions, while conservatives think incrementally about costs and benefits, and realise that there are only trade-offs.
Strawman.


Because I expected people to see that for themselves. Evidently I have to spoon-feed lefties from now on.
You don't have to spoonfeed. I'd settle for less misinformation.


Same applies to Australia and Britain though. The BBC recently admitted its leftist bias (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=411846&in_page_id=1770), while the ABC still hasn't got a "right-wing Phillip Adams". There have been calls in Australia to purge the few conservative commentators around, on the grounds of being out of step with a country that voted for Labor (never calls to remove lefties who were out of step with a country that voted for the Coalition in four straight elections).
You obviously have access to conservative news sources, so why do you care about the alleged bias in mainstream media? Do you feel it's your duty to babysit the rest of the population? Do you feel it's your duty to spoonfeed your right-wing editorials to other people?

If there really is demonstrable systemic bias, why don't you take it up with the media organisations themselves, instead of whinging here?

Capablanca-Fan
24-03-2008, 05:56 PM
Oh, diddums. Does it hurt when I poke holes in your nonsense?
Does it hurt when your intellectual superiors don't give any credence to your leftist slogans.

It might give good reason to people who see conspiracies everywhere.
That applies to Obama's pastor, and leftists in general who blame poverty on conspiracies by Western businessmen. But the preponderance of lefties in journalism certainly should give us pause about claims of lack of bias or journalistic nwutrality.


Red herring.
Not at all. It shows how out of touch many journos are.


You obviously have access to conservative news sources, so why do you care about the alleged bias in mainstream media? Do you feel it's your duty to babysit the rest of the population? Do you feel it's your duty to spoonfeed your right-wing editorials to other people?
I am providing some balance, and hoping that people learn to educate themselves with alternative news sources, rather than rely on leftist newspapers that you accept so uncritically.


If there really is demonstrable systemic bias, why don't you take it up with the media organisations themselves, instead of whinging here?
What would be the point, when the media organizations are staffed by the same sorts of lefties. So I bypass them by posting here. But before the Internet, the Leftmedia practically had a monopoly, and you'd like a leftist monopoly to remain since lefty ideas can't withstand logical scutiny.

Capablanca-Fan
25-03-2008, 11:25 PM
Or, put another way: Reaching into one's own pocket to assist his fellow man is noble and worthy of praise. Reaching into another person's pocket to assist one's fellow man is despicable and worthy of condemnation — Walter Williams, Socialism is Evil (http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=3814), 1 August 2004.

Kevin Bonham
26-03-2008, 12:25 AM
Or, put another way: Reaching into one's own pocket to assist his fellow man is noble and worthy of praise. Reaching into another person's pocket to assist one's fellow man is despicable and worthy of condemnation — Walter Williams, Socialism is Evil (http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=3814), 1 August 2004.

Where does he place reaching into another person's pocket to assist oneself?

Capablanca-Fan
26-03-2008, 01:35 AM
Where does he place reaching into another person's pocket to assist oneself?
Against.

Capablanca-Fan
11-04-2008, 03:32 PM
From Walter Williams' introduction to Choosing the Right College (http://www.isi.org/college_guide/sample/2008/258fintro.pdf)


According to a recent article by former American Enterprise editor Karl Zinsmeister, “The Shame of America’s One-Party Campuses,” campus political—and hence intellectual—diversity is all but absent. Zinsmeister sampled faculty political affiliation obtained from local voter registration records at several universities. He classifi ed faculty registered as Democratic, Green, or Working Families Party members as being on the left. Those registered as Republicans or Libertarians were classified as being on the right.

The results: at Brown University, 5 percent of the faculty were members of parties of the right; at Cornell it was 3 percent; Harvard, 4 percent; Penn State, 17 percent; Stanford University, 11 percent; UCLA, 6 percent; and at UC–Santa Barbara, 1 percent. There were other universities in the survey, but the pattern is the same—faculties are dominated by leftists. In some departments, such as women’s studies, African American studies, political science, sociology, history, and English, entire faculties are leftist without exception. When it came to the 2000 election, 84 percent of Ivy League faculty members voted for Al Gore, 6 percent for Ralph Nader, and 9 percent for George Bush. By contrast, among the general electorate, the vote was split at 48 percent for Gore and Bush and 3 percent for Nader.

Zinsmeister sarcastically concludes that one would find much greater political diversity at a grocery store or on a city bus.

In spring 2003, a rigorously scientific, large survey of American academics was conducted.

Using academic association membership lists from six fields—anthropology, economics, history, philosophy (political and legal), political science, and sociology—it asked the question: “To which political party have the candidates you’ve voted for in the past ten years mostly belonged?” The question was answered by 96.4 percent of academic respondents.

The results showed that anthropologists voted thirty to one in favor of Democrats. In sociology it was twenty-eight to one, political science seven to one, and economics three to one. The average across all six fi elds was fi fteen to one. Professor Dan Klein, one of the authors of the study, concluded that the social sciences and humanities are dominated by Democrats and that there is little intellectual diversity.

Igor_Goldenberg
11-04-2008, 04:12 PM
social sciences and humanities are dominated by Democrats and that there is little intellectual diversity.
There is little intellectual value to start with. Therefore diversity is irrelevant:D

Miguel
11-04-2008, 05:20 PM
<copy-dump>
Do you ever get saddle sores from riding this hobbyhorse?

Capablanca-Fan
11-04-2008, 05:32 PM
There is little intellectual value to start with. Therefore diversity is irrelevant:D
That's a point :lol:

Capablanca-Fan
11-04-2008, 05:33 PM
Do you ever get saddle sores from riding this hobbyhorse?
Do you ever get gingivitis from sucking on the security blanket of one-party uni faculties that share your rabid leftism?

Kevin Bonham
11-04-2008, 06:05 PM
The results: at Brown University, 5 percent of the faculty were members of parties of the right; at Cornell it was 3 percent; Harvard, 4 percent; Penn State, 17 percent; Stanford University, 11 percent; UCLA, 6 percent; and at UC–Santa Barbara, 1 percent.

Not very useful without comparative stats for membership of parties of the left.


When it came to the 2000 election, 84 percent of Ivy League faculty members voted for Al Gore, 6 percent for Ralph Nader, and 9 percent for George Bush. By contrast, among the general electorate, the vote was split at 48 percent for Gore and Bush and 3 percent for Nader.

Zinsmeister sarcastically concludes that one would find much greater political diversity at a grocery store or on a city bus.

He could just as easily conclude that most intelligent people would do anything to avoid contributing to George W Bush's election, even if they had to vote for a dolt like Gore to avoid doing so, and wonder if there was something to that beyond the simple issue of ideological bias.

Miguel
11-04-2008, 06:20 PM
Do you ever get gingivitis from sucking on the security blanket of one-party uni faculties that share your rabid leftism?
I don't know what's worse: The quality of your insults, or the quality of the "research" that you cite! :lol:

Capablanca-Fan
11-04-2008, 06:55 PM
Not very useful without comparative stats for membership of parties of the left.
Dunno why they were not mentioned, but the implication is that they were far higher, given the voting rates.


He could just as easily conclude that most intelligent people would do anything to avoid contributing to George W Bush's election, even if they had to vote for a dolt like Gore to avoid doing so, and wonder if there was something to that beyond the simple issue of ideological bias.
Or rather, they are so ideologically blinded by leftacademic group think that they would even vote for dolts like alGore and heiress-kept-puppy John Kerry.

Kevin Bonham
11-04-2008, 08:22 PM
Or rather, they are so ideologically blinded by leftacademic group think that they would even vote for dolts like alGore and heiress-kept-puppy John Kerry.

Are either of these significantly bigger dolts than Bush? I'm not convinced they are (I don't think much of any of them!) and even if they are, an unbiased intelligent person might legitimately prefer a waffly silly leftist dolt to a gung-ho right-wing one.

Capablanca-Fan
11-04-2008, 11:52 PM
Are either of these significantly bigger dolts than Bush?
Well, for all the Leftmedia worship of the great intellect of Gore and Kerry and denouncing Bush as a dunce, Bush had higher grades at uni. I know grades aren't everything, but they are something, and more than the Leftmedia has.


I'm not convinced they are (I don't think much of any of them!)
Me neither; they are all quite left wing, just that Bush is a lot less so. But he still signed tariff bills, the McCain Feingold stifling of political speech, and refused to veto massive spending bills, and is prone to cronyism.


and even if they are, an unbiased intelligent person might legitimately prefer a waffly silly leftist dolt to a gung-ho right-wing one.
But I would expect a slightly more even split between a lefty dolt and a righty dolt if the faculty were a closer political reflection of the American public.

pax
12-04-2008, 12:27 AM
Dunno why they were not mentioned, but the implication is that they were far higher, given the voting rates.
Of course that's the implication - the whole piece is pushing an agenda. I would suggest that the figures for the left are not mentioned because they do not support his argument.

In fact, figures like 17% and 11% strike me as being very high rates of membership of any political party.

Capablanca-Fan
12-04-2008, 11:57 AM
Of course that's the implication - the whole piece is pushing an agenda. I would suggest that the figures for the left are not mentioned because they do not support his argument.
Right, of course, the cheerleader for B. Hussein Obama and his racist and antisemitic pastor ignores the huge preponderance of Dem voters in Uni faculties.

pax
12-04-2008, 05:51 PM
Right, of course, the cheerleader for B. Hussein Obama and his racist and antisemitic pastor ignores the huge preponderance of Dem voters in Uni faculties.
Got a quote?

Capablanca-Fan
12-04-2008, 08:02 PM
Got a quote?
I don't need spoonfeeding like you do, for whom Obama can do no wrong. Wright ardently supports the terrorist organization Hamas (Hebrew for "violence", how apropriate), printing their crap in his church bulletin, and is a close buddy of Louis Farrakhan, who called Hitler a "very great man".

Kevin Bonham
12-04-2008, 09:30 PM
Louis Farrakhan, who called Hitler a "very great man".

... and in the same speech (ridiculous as it was) he also stated he was "not proud of Hitler's evil toward Jewish people," so that particular speech to me demonstrates extremely poor judgement and taste under pressure (the pressure of others calling him a "Black Hitler" supposedly) rather than antisemitism. Farrakhan was praising Hitler for his efforts in the sphere of nation-building, not those in the sphere of genocide. He also implied Hitler was a "wicked killer".

However he also said that Hitler's was "a good name" because of his nation-building, which, while not proving antisemitism, certainly shows extreme insensitivity and a fair degree of cognitive dissonance.

You may well be able to demonstrate he is antisemitic via other quotes; I just looked up that one out of interest.

pax
12-04-2008, 09:47 PM
Wright ardently supports the terrorist organization Hamas (Hebrew for "violence", how apropriate), printing their crap in his church bulletin,
Where does he "ardently support" Hamas? The article you refer to was reprinted from a major US newspaper. There was no indication that I saw that the views were supported in any way, let alone "ardently".

and is a close buddy of Louis Farrakhan, who called Hitler a "very great man".
So he knows a guy who knows some other guy who said something stupid in a speech... The bow gets longer and longer...

Capablanca-Fan
13-04-2008, 12:24 AM
Where does he "ardently support" Hamas? The article you refer to was reprinted from a major US newspaper. There was no indication that I saw that the views were supported in any way, let alone "ardently".
Printed in Obama's church newsletter, which couldn't have happened without Pastor Wright's approval. It's also impossible to believe that Obama didn't read this, yet he stayed in the church.


So he knows a guy who knows some other guy who said something stupid in a speech... The bow gets longer and longer...
Good grief man, is your Obama worship making you totally obtuse, even more than the general obtuseness caused by leftist beliefs. No, Pastor Wright doesn't merely know Farrakhan. His chuch gave the Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. Trumpeter Award to a Farrakhan, saying that he “truly epitomized greatness”. Wright and Farrakhan travelled together to meet terrorism sponsor Muammar el-Qaddafi of Libya in 1984.

The latest patronizing liberal crap from B. Hussein Obama (http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2008/04/the-game-changi.html): it might make hero-worshippers like Pax swoon:


You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not.

And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

But way to go about winning the votes of most Americans: insulting gun owners and churchgoers as motivated by bitterness, and insinuating widespread racism, although one of the worst racists is his own pastor.

pax
13-04-2008, 01:46 AM
It's also impossible to believe that Obama didn't read this, yet he stayed in the church.
:eek: Have you read every article in every issue of every newsletter of every church you have ever attended?!?? :eek:

Capablanca-Fan
13-04-2008, 09:50 AM
:eek: Have you read every article in every issue of every newsletter of every church you have ever attended?!?? :eek:
Come on, are you seriously trying to tell me that Obama was unaware that a Hamas propaganda piece was in his church newsletter, even if he didn't read it himself? That Obama was unaware of Wright's trip to see Gaddafi with Farrakhan?

pax
13-04-2008, 10:27 AM
Come on, are you seriously trying to tell me that Obama was unaware that a Hamas propaganda piece was in his church newsletter, even if he didn't read it himself? That Obama was unaware of Wright's trip to see Gaddafi with Farrakhan?

Aware wasn't the word you used. Of course Obama is aware of it now. Whether he was aware of it at the time, I have not the faintest idea.

A question for you Jono. If a man wants to kill you, and he writes an article explaining why he wants to kill you, wouldn't you want to read it?

Capablanca-Fan
13-04-2008, 10:51 AM
Aware wasn't the word you used. Of course Obama is aware of it now. Whether he was aware of it at the time, I have not the faintest idea.
That's the question: what did Obama know, and when did he know it? I'd say quite a long time ago, since Wright is on record ages ago saying that he might be a liability for Obama's campaign. It's also hard to credit that he knew nothing of Wright's race-baiting, Farrakhan/Gaddafi alliance and Hamas support. Even if Obama hadn't read the newsletter, he had to be aware of discussion about it in the church, given that the mob cheer Wright's bigoted attacks on America and white people.


A question for you Jono. If a man wants to kill you, and he writes an article explaining why he wants to kill you, wouldn't you want to read it?
Is there actually a point to this question?

Also, Obama spruiked:

"John McCain is a good man. He's an American hero. We honor his service to the nation. But he's made some bad decisions about the company he keeps."

So by his own reasoning, it is reasonable to just Obama by the company he keeps, such as Wright the friend of Farrakhan, domestic terrorist Bill Ayers, campaign offices with a Che Guevara flag, the More On loony lefties, traitoress Hanoi Jane Fonda who laughed and joked with Vietcong flak gunners while they were torturing McCain in their Hanoi Hilton ...

Capablanca-Fan
13-04-2008, 11:11 AM
The world spews out millions of kiddie lefties each year — in fact it's this phenomenon that gives the left its oxygen line. If they were no such spewings, the left side of politics would have been kaput about 20 years ago — just leaving Denis (coiffing wine and intellectualising with other scholars), pax, Southpaw, a coupla werkas and some knuckle-dragging mums making up the full team!
Of course, but that's partly the faulty of Righties who blithely send their kids to government schools to be indoctrinated by lefty teachers' unions. It's hard for parents to undo the damage of 6 hours a day, 5 days a week of the evils of Australia's history, John Howard, Europeans, capitalists ...

Even though Righties tend to have more kids than Lefties, it's no use if they let the Lefties indoctrinate their kids.

Capablanca-Fan
14-04-2008, 10:52 AM
The latest patronizing liberal crap from B. Hussein Obama (http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2008/04/the-game-changi.html): it might make hero-worshippers like Pax swoon:


You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not.

And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

But way to go about winning the votes of most Americans: insulting gun owners and churchgoers as motivated by bitterness, and insinuating widespread racism, although one of the worst racists is his own pastor.

Now Obama spins (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/04/obama-allies-av.html) in the same way he did about Wright, to Pax's delight:


If I worded things in a way that made people offended, I deeply regret that. ... What I meant was something that I don’t think any of us can argue with, which is that people feel abandoned after 20 or 25 years of plants closing, jobs not coming back. People feel like Washington’s not listening to them, and as a consequence, they find that they can only rely on the traditions and the things that have been important to them for generation after generation. Faith. Family. Traditions like hunting. And they get frustrated. …

There are a whole bunch of folks in small towns ... who are bitter. They are angry. They feel like they’ve been left behind. They feel like nobody's paying attention to what they're going through. So I said, well you know, when you're bitter, you turn to what you can count on. So people, you know, they vote about guns or they take comfort from their faith, and their family, and their community, and they get mad about illegal immigrants who are coming over to this country, or they get frustrated about how things are changing. That’s a natural response. Now, I didn’t say it as well as I should have, because the truth is, is that these traditions that are passed on from generation to generation—those are important.

No, I'm not really an urban überleftist who hates biblical Christianity and the Second Amendment and those who think our borders should be protected. These benighted Conservatives can't help it because they were raised that way …

Spiny Norman
14-04-2008, 12:11 PM
Wondering whether all you Chess Chatters qualify as people with whom I keep company? If so, that might be a serious problem, given where I work ... ;) ... and a problem for Jono ... and would any of the uni-employed here be worried if their employer ... oh, never mind ... :P

Capablanca-Fan
14-04-2008, 01:39 PM
Clinton on Obama's latest lefty snobbery (http://www.townhall.com/news/politics-elections/2008/04/13/obamas_remarks_give_clinton_an_opening?page=1)


The comments, posted Friday on The Huffington Post Web site, set off a blast of criticism from Clinton, Republican nominee-in-waiting John McCain and other GOP officials, and drew attention to a potential Obama weakness _ the image some have that the Harvard-trained lawyer is arrogant and aloof. ...

Clinton hit all those themes in lengthy comments to manufacturing workers in Indianapolis. ...

"The people of faith I know don't 'cling' to religion because they're bitter. People embrace faith not because they are materially poor, but because they are spiritually rich," she said.

"I also disagree with Senator Obama's assertion that people in this country 'cling to guns' and have certain attitudes about immigration or trade simply out of frustration," Clinton added.

"People don't need a president who looks down on them," she said. "They need a president who stands up for them."