Economics is Taught with a Left Wing Bias

Hopelessly naive, most poor kids cant get through 100% free HS. If you want to educate them you have change the liberal ghetto hop hop welfare victimization culture. Do you understand?

 

When you write something intelligent, I'll respond.

Till then, bye-bye ...

 

I grew up poor. Appalachian poor. My mother dressed me in clothes from yard sales. My father retired making $7.50 per hour. We had our own garden, and canned over 1000 quarts of food a year. Our house was heated with wood burning stoves.. On weekends as a family, we would clear cut fence lines for farmers and keep the wood to heat our home (when mom and dad met after he got of the army from serving im Korea, he was lumber jacking for logs and would sell good examples to wood mills). We sold or traded excess food and wood and used it to buy treats, like an ice cream maker. We hunted a lot, so much that I didn't eat beef until I was 13. I was raised on venison, rabbit, squirrel, catfish and blue gills, craw dad tails and turtle. We never ever had government assistance. We didn't need it. During winter, Mom would put home grown veggies in a pot with a squirrel or rabbit and cook it until the meat fell off the bones. The smells of her cooking live with me to this day.

I know what it's like to be poor, and I know what it is like to crawl out of it. When I married my wife, I made $3.16/hour as a dishwasher in a truck stop. Today, I paid for my daughter's college education.

Talk and theorizing is cheap. I lived it. I know what they are talking about is compete BS. Living within one's means isn't hard, nor is increasing one's means impossible.

 

More trade schools are needed, and since the Feds involved themselves in education it has entirely had negative results. This country needs to entirely change its approach to education.

My best friend has 2 masters degrees in education, and some of his ideas are very good. He likes a modified version of how the Japanese approach it.

(BTW, he grew up poor too)

 

The fundamental problem is that the "expenditure" decision is based upon the wrong criteria. The criteria is not "How do we divide the pie" but instead the criteria needs to be based upon the "Necessity for the Pie" because "necessity" determines how large the pie has to be.

Republicans (and most libertarians) make the mistake of believing that the founders of America believed in "small government" but that was never the case. They believed in "necessary government" and that meant the government would be as large or as small as necessity dictated. "Limited" government refers to a government that is limited to fulfilling it's necessary purpose. This is reflected by the "First Principle" of Limited Government" that served as a foundation for the United States:

http://www.americassurvivalguide.com/americas-first-principles.php

The unalienable/inalienable rights of the person are their natural rights and extremes in income/wealth inequality represents a violation of the natural (unalienable/inalienable) right of property. This is clearly evident in John Locke's Second Treatise of Civil Government, Chapter 5, that addresses the Natural Right "Of Property" where he makes two statements that stand out.

"The earth, and all that is therein, is given to men for the support and comfort of their being."

Individually or collectively we all have a right to our basic support and comfort.

"What portion a man carved to himself, was easily seen; and it was useless, as well as dishonest, to carve himself too much, or take more than he needed."

http://www.constitution.org/jl/2ndtr05.txt

The person that has more income than they can possibly spend on their support and comfort, that has more wealth than they could ever spend on their support and comfort, acquired that income or that wealth dishonesty by taking it from someone else that needed it for their support and comfort.

The person working full time that isn't receiving enough compensation to provide for their support as well as some of the minimal comforts of life while others have more than what they can ever possibly use is having their natural (unalienable/inalienable) right of property violated.

Employing a person is always a voluntary act by the employer while employment is always an involuntary act by the person. Whenever any employer hires a person the minimum compensation that they owe them, regardless of what the job may be, is the compensation necessary for the "support and comfort" of the employee.

 

Nice story. Courageous.

But not everybody is as brave as you are. They need help to make it.

A free education up to the postsecondary level along with free hospital care are the norm for most modern democracies. Both immensely level the playing field.

Except one country. Guess which one ...

 

Incorrect. Any person may choose not to be an employee. They may choose to join a worker cooperative, start a worker cooperative, or become a sole proprietor.

 

Where do you live, Baff?
What is the main evidence that those teachers are socialist? What do that advocate?

 

That's not true. Must I explain it to you?

 

I said, "Any person may choose not to be an employee. They may choose to join a worker cooperative, start a worker cooperative, or become a sole proprietor." To which you replied:

Yes, please defend your assertion.

 

If "any person may choose not to be an employee, it has to also allow that "every person may choose not to be an employee" since you didn't say that some few people may choose not to be an employee. It should be very obvious that, given the number of co-ops, there are very few opportunities to work for one. So that assertion is hereby refuted.

Regarding your assertion that anyone may "become a sole proprietor", there are some people, and not a few, whose personalities/psychology would make successful ownership and operation of a sole proprietorship impossible. There are people who cannot manage money, or cannot manage schedules, or who do not interact well with other people (customers). There are many reasons a person may not be suited to owning a sole proprietorship or even a partnership. Inability to deal with the attendant stress may prevent it. So that assertion is hereby refuted as well.

The problem with most people who can, or have very high confidence that they can run a business successfully, is that they cannot understand why everyone isn't like them. They deny that individuality and diversity are part of life.

 

Any, every, and all persons who are free to make choices can and often do choose not to be an employee, and are (or more rationally, should be) liable to suffer/enjoy the consequences of their choices.

Left...Emotional...Center...Rational...Right

 

Why would there be very few opportunities to work for a co-op? And why couldn't a group of people who are unhappy being employees start up their own co-op?

Anyone can do these things.

 

Get me a count of privately owned businesses and a count of worker-controlled co-ops and you'll see why. Add to that the very low turnover for co-op workers.

They may be able to if they can overcome the barriers like financing. But to really make it an option there's a need for much more of the sort of support and incentives that are available for privately owned businesses.

Like I said:
"The problem with most people who can, or have very high confidence that they can run a business successfully, is that they cannot understand why everyone isn't like them. They deny that individuality and diversity are part of life."


Everyone is not a duplicate of you, IF you are a person who could do it. Maybe you know you aren't, and that would be your answer.

 

Please quote my posts accurately in the future, and post your alterations in response.

 

What support and incentives exist available for starting a private owned business that are unavailable to starting a co-op?

 

Plenty. Remember this is a capitalist economy, so there has been time to establish all sorts of supports and incentives. I've heard a list of them but all I can think of right now is business financing, The Chamber of Commerce, etc. Do a Google search and tell me what you find.

 

Thanks, but its not courageous

It has nothing to do with bravery. This is what I am attempting to impart upon you-

I am nothing special.

I am not courageous or brave.

Short of severe psychological or physical issues, anyone born in from my lot in life can do exactly what I did, and many of my friends have.

Nothing is free, so your premise is a false narrative.

 

Well put.

Some people do not want the responsibility of managing other people. They prefer, as a career choice, to be "staff".

This does not mean the defense of their interests are to be overlooked, which underscores the need for worker unions. Trade Union percentages are anywhere from around 10% in Australia and the US to 60% in Northern Europe - Sweden, Denmark, etc. (See here: OECD - Trade Union Density.)

Never that great, union membership in the US continues to deteriorate:


If workers do not want the protection of Trade Unions, they open themselves to the manipulation of corporate management regardless of the size of the company. But, when you are being paid $7 bucks an hour (as do many in the US), Union Dues can be a significant part of weekly salary. And at such low salaries, these are the kinds of jobs that need the most protection.

 

Replicant banter. It aint necessarily so for the larger part of the working population.

There are two career paths in most companies (especially large ones) - Management and Staff. Not all staff are of the ability to aptly manage people. So, they prefer simply to work under someone else's supervision.

That is the reality of work. But, you seem to have this incorrect notion that "where there's a will, then there's always a way to succeed".

And that aint necessarily so for everybody* ...

*Especially, aside from the will to succeed, if one does not have sufficient training/education.

 

A business is a business, private owned or co-op. What I find is that the same impediments apply to starting a co-op that apply to starting a private owned business. Plenty of the same, it would appear.

 

The vast majority of my friends have taken similar paths so it isn't "Replicant banter" (whatever that is supposed to mean- a reference to Bladerunner perhaps?)

...which is completely irrelevant. One can be sucessful and work under someone's supervision (most everyone does, as a matter of fact) Please try to stay on topic and cease deflecting to irrelevant topics.

Of course not. As I stated, short of severe psychological or physical issues, anyone born in from my lot in life can do exactly what I did. I'm nothing special.

 

NO MAN IS AN ISLAND

Exactly what I mean, and BECAUSE your are a Republican.

You think that life is all about you, you, you and how "well you do, do, do".

But it isn't. You are dependent upon a market-economy that is, beyond the limited scope of wherever you live, will determine how well you live or don't. It is really not about YOU, but how well you pursue a career and lifestyle within any community you decide to live.

Which itself is determined by both happenstance and the "rules of play" as you participate in that market-economy.

The world is not just about "you", but also "us" - which is what Republicans have a great deal of trouble assimilating. (Or, as the saying goes, "What goes around, comes around ...")

And the "rules of play" in the US are not as fair as they are elsewhere. But, if one does not "get around", then how can you know ... ?

 

I live in the UK.
The education system here is pre-dominantly socialised.

I work in it, but not in economics.

It's not just economics teachers who are socialist, it's the predominant political ideology in the teaching profession.
It pays our wages.
Right wing teachers exist, but I would never dare to express my politics in an educational environment. Career suicide.
There are just too many cranky lefties in positions of authority who would run me out of the job.
It's sounds stupid, but it's a real concern. I never ever ever mention my politics in school. Never.
It's obviously not a sackable offence, but it would make me powerful enemies within my career.
They would just think me evil and unsuitable to teach children, and then run me out of the job.


Probably the biggest divide in economics schools that gets reflected politically is Keynes.
Keynes essentially says in a downturn, borrow to promote an upturn and in an upturn, save for a downturn.

And anyone wanting to borrow money promotes this school of economics. Namely, the left. The socialists, who are skint because they have spent everyone's money already.

Now right wingers also agree with Keynes. But don't cry "downturn" all day every day and hence endlessly borrow more and never save.

Essentially left wing economists advocate for big government spending stimuli and economic interference/management/manipulation/regulation. Government led market manipulation.
We have the economic levers, so lets pull them to our advantage.

Right wings tend to prefer laissaez faire. "Free market" economics.
So there is no free market, but they try and get as close to that as they can.

Without interference in the market, regulations, subsidies, the economic relationship between productive and counter productive is easier to calculate. No distortions.
In fact if the mythical free market actually existed we would be able to come up with an empiric scale to measure efficiency and productivity on.
We could better quantify the value of things. How much each service or good is valued by people.
But there is no free market, so our guesses are more inaccurate.

I'd call this "pure economics". it's an attempt to get accurate understandings of social behaviour and not attempts to promote a certain type of social behaviour in my eyes.

Left wing. Politics > economics.
It is more important to get people to behave as you wish, than it is to make money.
You will hear, "it's not all about the money". "You shouldn't put money over people".

Right wing.
Being able to eat is a top priority. The top priority. Resources are the key to life.
Economics> politics.
Getting people to salute you is not as important as feeding yourself.