Should all education be privitized?

[phk]

Should education be privitized?

[Bono]

Yes, absolutely.
public education is the biggest tool in the hands of anti-capitalists, for you cannot be prepared to live in a system based on freedom of intiative and assotiation while being taught by a system based on cohercion and conformism.

[A18]

What is needed in this country is a voucher of substantial size, available to all students, and free of excessive regulations.

[Bono]

What is needed in this country is a voucher of substantial size, available to all students, and free of excessive regulations...

...that will end up being imposed sooner or later.

[A18]

By excessive regulations, I mean excluding anything beyond Al Qaeda training camps.

[© tweed]

No, then you'd end up having people who can't afford to have an education.

[A18]

No, then you'd end up having people who can't afford to have an education.

Well, there is something called a loan. But I agree that a voucher program is more feasible.

[© tweed]

No, then you'd end up having people who can't afford to have an education.

Well, there is something called a loan. But I agree that a voucher program is more feasible.

Then you'd have people taking out loans they can't pay off.  Then we open debtor's prisons?

It simply wouldn't work.

[Jake]

Except it does work for college.

[Bono]

By excessive regulations, I mean excluding anything beyond Al Qaeda training camps.

Yes, but leftists would jump onto hat the minute they got power.

[Bono]

No, then you'd end up having people who can't afford to have an education.

Well, there is something called a loan. But I agree that a voucher program is more feasible.

Then you'd have people taking out loans they can't pay off.  Then we open debtor's prisons?

It simply wouldn't work.

Schools would simply teach people for a share of their income for a certain number of years when they got a job.

[© tweed]

Except it does work for college.

Different situations.  A large amount of the people who attend college aren't societal failures; most of those people don't go to college.  These people usually will earn enough money later on to pay off debts.

In Wayne county, this won't always be the case.

Also, you can make the argument that people can afford to pay off 4 years worth of student loans, but not 16 years.  There'd likely be a big difference in price.

[© tweed]

No, then you'd end up having people who can't afford to have an education.

Well, there is something called a loan. But I agree that a voucher program is more feasible.

Then you'd have people taking out loans they can't pay off.  Then we open debtor's prisons?

It simply wouldn't work.

Schools would simply teach people for a share of their income for a certain number of years when they got a job.

What if they never get a job?  And how do you know how private companies would bill their clients?

[John Dibble]

Except it does work for college.

Thing is though, the students who take out student loans are going to college to get a higher paying job than they otherwise would be, so they are much more likely to be able to pay off the loan. It's a bit different when the people who want to take out the loan are poor and are less likely to have a substantial increase in income to pay them off.

I'm thinking vouchers are the best way to do things.

[Bono]

No, then you'd end up having people who can't afford to have an education.

Well, there is something called a loan. But I agree that a voucher program is more feasible.

Then you'd have people taking out loans they can't pay off.  Then we open debtor's prisons?

It simply wouldn't work.

Schools would simply teach people for a share of their income for a certain number of years when they got a job.

What if they never get a job?  And how do you know how private companies would bill their clients?

If they never get a job, it means the school did a crap job. By putting those kind of contracts out, a school is passing the message to the market that anyone who goes to school there will get a job, and they'd have to do so in order to profit. It's the best free market solution.
I don't understand the second question.

[© tweed]

You told me how the private companies will bill their clients.  You said they will bill them by taking a share of their income after they get a job.

But if it's a private company, how do you know how they will bill their clients?  They can bill them any numbers of ways and not just by the method you laid out.

[Bono]

You told me how the private companies will bill their clients.  You said they will bill them by taking a share of their income after they get a job.

But if it's a private company, how do you know how they will bill their clients?  They can bill them any numbers of ways and not just by the method you laid out.

They can in any number of ways, though they are interested in maximizing their market, so that'd be a good solution for poor people. They could use this method or other, but since this method already exists and has been praised by many market theorists, it would probably be proheminent. THey could use any method whatsoever, obviously.

[© tweed]

They can in any number of ways, though they are interested in maximizing their market, so that'd be a good solution for poor people. They could use this method or other, but since this method already exists and has been praised by many market theorists, it would probably be proheminent. THey could use any method whatsoever, obviously.

Exactly--and other methods most certainly would all but prohibit lower-income families from getting an education and make social mobility a thing of the past.

It'd put us back in the deep south of 1880.

[Dave from Michigan]

no but our education system is ed up

[Bono]

They can in any number of ways, though they are interested in maximizing their market, so that'd be a good solution for poor people. They could use this method or other, but since this method already exists and has been praised by many market theorists, it would probably be proheminent. THey could use any method whatsoever, obviously.

Exactly--and other methods most certainly would all but prohibit lower-income families from getting an education and make social mobility a thing of the past.

It'd put us back in the deep south of 1880.

Yes, because no coporation wants to sell stuff to poor people.
Get real. corporations aren't out to get poor people, on teh contrary, it's selling stuff to them that you make money.

just look at Henry ford or Sam Walton.

[© tweed]

They can in any number of ways, though they are interested in maximizing their market, so that'd be a good solution for poor people. They could use this method or other, but since this method already exists and has been praised by many market theorists, it would probably be proheminent. THey could use any method whatsoever, obviously.

Exactly--and other methods most certainly would all but prohibit lower-income families from getting an education and make social mobility a thing of the past.

It'd put us back in the deep south of 1880.

Yes, because poor people are not a market at all.

That doesn't mean that they aren't entitled to an education.  And some of the poors become contributors to society because of educational oppurtunities.  Privitization of education would ruin these opputunities.

[Bono]

They can in any number of ways, though they are interested in maximizing their market, so that'd be a good solution for poor people. They could use this method or other, but since this method already exists and has been praised by many market theorists, it would probably be proheminent. THey could use any method whatsoever, obviously.

Exactly--and other methods most certainly would all but prohibit lower-income families from getting an education and make social mobility a thing of the past.

It'd put us back in the deep south of 1880.

Yes, because poor people are not a market at all.

That doesn't mean that they aren't entitled to an education.  And some of the poors become contributors to society because of educational oppurtunities.  Privitization of education would ruin these opputunities.

It was sarcasm. read my edit.

[© tweed]

They're not out to get poor people, no.  But you can't argue attaching a fee to education would extend education oppurtunities.

What it would likely do is increase the quality of the education of the top 75-80% of society, and end the educational oppurtunities of the other 20%.

Corporations would make more money by charging a lofty sum to the top 80% than they would offering a reasonable deal to everyone, or most everyone.

[Bono]

They're not out to get poor people, no.  But you can't argue attaching a fee to education would extend education oppurtunities.

What it would likely do is increase the quality of the education of the top 75-80% of society, and end the educational oppurtunities of the other 20%.

Corporations would make more money by charging a lofty sum to the top 80% than they would offering a reasonable deal to everyone, or most everyone.

so, that'd leave a potentialmarket of 20% of the population. Dude, defered pay systems are not utopian, they already exist. It is a very good way of exploring the poor market.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Absolutely not