Don't we Americans ever learn from our mistakes, seems to me if your house was foreclosed on, that perhaps you might think twice before taking out a mortgage you can't afford.
Why do people buy things they can't afford, I don't understand the mentality?

quote:

Originally posted by meljomur:
Don't we Americans ever learn from our mistakes, seems to me if your house was foreclosed on, that perhaps you might think twice before taking out a mortgage you can't afford.
Why do people buy things they can't afford, I don't understand the mentality?

A lot of these people were assured that their house value would rise enough so that they could re-finance at a lowered, set interest rate before an adjusted interest rate increase would ever take place. Pure, unregulated mortgage market scam jobs.

These mortgages helped keep the economy from slowing. The U.S. economy is based on credit and deficits...not wealth creation (goods) with the purchasing power in wages to purchase them.

Retired Monk
"Ideology is a disease"

And You Thought Oil Prices Were High?

So should ours kids go to school less, to conserve on education expenditure?
How can you even compare the two?
Damn kids first they want health care, and now they want good education, what is wrong with them?

Come on Ron, you are capable of better than this.

quote:

Originally posted by polycarp:

quote:

Originally posted by meljomur:
Don't we Americans ever learn from our mistakes, seems to me if your house was foreclosed on, that perhaps you might think twice before taking out a mortgage you can't afford.
Why do people buy things they can't afford, I don't understand the mentality?

A lot of these people were assured that their house value would rise enough so that they could re-finance at a lowered, set interest rate before an adjusted interest rate increase would ever take place. Pure, unregulated mortgage market scam jobs.

These mortgages helped keep the economy from slowing. The U.S. economy is based on credit and deficits...not wealth creation (goods) with the purchasing power in wages to purchase them.

Retired Monk
"Ideology is a disease"

Poly,
I realize people took a chance, and for many years it did pay off, and I do feel very bad for people who lost their homes, just because they wanted to get a foot on the property ladder. However, I don't think you should borrow more than you can afford.
Having said that if the government helps out financial institutions for making bad decisions, than there should be a safety net for individuals too.

quote:

Originally posted by meljomur:
So should ours kids go to school less, to conserve on education expenditure?
How can you even compare the two?
Damn kids first they want health care, and now they want good education, what is wrong with them?

Come on Ron, you are capable of better than this.

Melissa, can you look past your own prejudices and look at data as data to tell a story not to run off with conclusions that are not merited.

But please tell me a business that not only gets the rate of inflation from you every year but also expects 1000 per cent more per unit output without an improvement in quality or quantity?

This just tells that we may not be getting what we should be getting for our dollars? Unless you like debt then I say we need to address these inflationary pressures.

If you are looking for suggestions then:
Increase spending on technology and other inputs that provide a marginal benefit more than labor. Decrease the bloated bureaucracy of the current system. Add more competition into the system...

Ron,

Excuse me if you think I am being a bit thick on this, but since when is public education supposed to be run as a for profit corporation? And why on earth would we want it to be?

What is the logic in comparing oil prices to public education?

Do you have kids?, god and you wonder why I am so anxious to get to the UK!

Melissa, then what happens when there is no accountability for how funds are used?

You would think that if we are paying more by 1000 percent over the rate of inflation we should be getting something for that.

I believe you said you are going to send yours to private schools? If not you should be looking at the bullying in schools now. If the Prime Minister has to address this issue on a frequent basis, then you might want to check that out.

But it is simply if prices goes up so much more than inflation and cost of living then we should question this? If you would rather throw money at the problems then that is your choice...

Ron, are you just really thick or are you so arrogant that you believe that the rest of us are? It's one or the other, man, take your pick.

I haven't noticed that private schools are particularly cheap either, unless they're run by a religious organization, in which case they're either heavily subsidized or the teachers are nuns that work for dirt or both.

Your comparison between oil and education is almost totally meaningless. The oil industry, like most extractive or manufacturing industries, is highly conducive to efficiencies from capital investment in mechanization and in economies of scale. Education isn't.

Industrial productivity is measured as more output per unit of labor input. Applied to education that would mean more students per teacher, yet everybody knows that's the exact wrong way to go to get good results! What's the most effective ratio? One-to-one! They're called tutors. That's one reason why some of those that can afford the more expensive private schools make that choice.

And your whole premise is further flawed by the nature of the normalizing factor, CPI. It's an aggregate number, an average of a "typical market basket". Some of the items in that basket will have enjoyed remarkable productivity gains through technological advance while others will not. The ones that do enjoy that advantage skew the average down making the rest appear worse by comparison. A much better comparison would be to look at other industries or activities that, like education, by their nature aren't amenable to mechanization. Picking strawberries, healthcare, or on-site home construction are some that come to mind. They aren't perfect analogies, but nothing is.

You're going to have to do better than that. We're onto you.

Man you are good. In the short time you have been here you have managed to give us a classic case offalse dichotomy.

quote:

Your comparison between oil and education is almost totally meaningless. The oil industry, like most extractive or manufacturing industries, is highly conducive to efficiencies from capital investment in mechanization and in economies of scale. Education isn't.

Boy I like that "almost totally meaningless". How vacuous can you be?

Unless you have a better gage of how prices increase then you should tell the economist that posted that information. But you have done one right. You have pointed out our present paradigm, and unless we change our dogmas then the present conditions will continue.

quote:

You're going to have to do better than that. We're onto you.

Are you saying that you won't fall for the banana in the tailpipe again?

Random,
This is just Ron's MO, I don't think he honestly believes half the crap he writes, just seems like a bored rich man, with too much time on his hands, and pretty uninteresting people in which to engage in, in his "real" life. But of course this is just my soul opininion

quote:

Originally posted by Ronald Rutherford:
Melissa, then what happens when there is no accountability for how funds are used?

You would think that if we are paying more by 1000 percent over the rate of inflation we should be getting something for that.

I believe you said you are going to send yours to private schools? If not you should be looking at the bullying in schools now. If the Prime Minister has to address this issue on a frequent basis, then you might want to check that out.

But it is simply if prices goes up so much more than inflation and cost of living then we should question this? If you would rather throw money at the problems then that is your choice...

If you want better education, costs have to go up. We need less pupils per teacher in many schools. This means an increase in cost per student. Add to that the lacking computers, scientific equipment and the like, and the cost goes up even more.

The schools have been stripped to the bare bones over past years trying to get education on the "cheap". Good education can't be done on the cheap, but it is is suitable for a career at McDonald's or Walmart. It's fine for training a population that doesn't have the cognitive skills to comprehend the political and economic system that they are born imedded in.

The accountability for the failures to properly finance education is where?

Retired Monk
Ideology is a disease"

quote:

Random,
This is just Ron's MO, I don't think he honestly believes half the crap he writes, just seems like a bored rich man, with too much time on his hands, and pretty uninteresting people in which to engage in, in his "real" life. But of course this is just my soul opininion Wink

Mel,
Don't worry, he didn't hurt my itty-wittle feelings. And you're right of course. Every libertarian I've ever run across suffers from the persistent delusion that they're the smartest person in the room. All you have to do is look at the title of this thread Ronnie started (Economics 101,201,301...). He's sees himself on a mission to educate us poor, stupid, mis-informed liberals. If only we would just listen to the obvious wisdom pouring forth from his well-worn keyboard we would attain true enlightenment.

They're a bizarre bunch all right. I should know, I spent a few years self-identifying as one of them before I came to my senses. This is a crowd that will have serious debates over whether private citizens should be allowed to carry nuclear weapons, whether we should tolerate a religion that practices human sacrifice, or whether parents actually have any moral or legal obligation to feed their children.

In economics they espouse a sort of "one size fits all" philosophy, and in their world everything is economic. They would privatize the police, the courts, and the military if they could. They believe all taxation is theft and would require the government to be run on user fees and voluntary donations.

I don't claim to be some economic genius, nor do I have the answers to all the world's problems. But I aced Macro, Micro, Money & Banking, and Engineering Econ 25 years ago. My econ professor seriously encouraged me to change majors and I actually read "Wealth of Nations" for the fun of it. Bottom line is I really do not need to be "educated" by some libertarian yahoo on an Internet forum.

So now that we've established that we don't like each other very much, let's continue the discussion, shall we?

quote:

Melissa, can you look past your own prejudices and look at data as data to tell a story not to run off with conclusions that are not merited.

Can you look past your prejudices and view the data for what it is; woefully incomplete and misleading?
For instance, does the data on the "Real" price of oil include the costs of military expenditures in the Gulf to ensure the free flow of Arabian oil?
Does it include any adjustments for the favorable tax treatment that extractive industries enjoy? My wife and I receive checks every month for oil and gas royalties that she inherited. Despite the fact that it's totally free money for us, we're allowed to deduct 15% off the gross revenue for "depletion allowance". Essentially, we get a tax write-off for depleting a natural resource.

quote:

But please tell me a business that not only gets the rate of inflation from you every year but also expects 1000 per cent more per unit output without an improvement in quality or quantity?

The health insurance industry for one.

quote:

Increase spending on technology and other inputs that provide a marginal benefit more than labor.

Suggestions? I'm not going to let you get away with vague hand-waving on this one.

Technology has been introduced into classrooms in the form of computers. The verdict is mixed. On the one hand, computers and the Internet allow teachers and students to do things that they couldn't do before. On the other, they can often be a distraction with some pupils learning more about Solitaire and Internet porn than anything else. And despite the efforts of many very smart software designers and contrary to the glossy advertising brochures, they can't replace real live teachers.

quote:

Decrease the bloated bureaucracy of the current system.

Depends entirely on which school district you're talking about. In some areas there is certainly waste and even corruption; schools are run by humans, after all. But in general the purse strings are kept by local school boards that are very sensitive to costs. On the whole, I believe this criticism is over-blown.

quote:

Add more competition into the system...

Easier said than done in many cases. I live in a rural area. There simply aren't enough students to support more than one school system. Out here we're constantly having to consolidate schools because of the declining population.

Continuing...

quote:

Man you are good. In the short time you have been here you have managed to give us a classic case offalse dichotomy.

Sure. There are more choices, but the other ones assume that you are correct. You're not.

quote:

Boy I like that "almost totally meaningless". How vacuous can you be?

Oh, I don't know. I could post a very misleading graph and make unfounded conclusions without taking into consideration any other variables...

quote:

Unless you have a better gage of how prices increase then you should tell the economist that posted that information.

The CPI is fine in general, but it can only tell you what it can tell you. It's a severe distillation of a great deal of data into one number. It can tell you things, but not what you want it to mean.

quote:

Are you saying that you won't fall for the banana in the tailpipe again?

I don't know, I've never had a banana in my tailpipe. What does that feel like?

quote:

So now that we've established that we don't like each other very much, let's continue the discussion, shall we?

RT, is this just randoms thoughts? I mean how can I say I do not like you? What basis do I have for not liking another person that I only exchanged a couple of words with? If you can not take a joke then I am sorry that I may have had fun at your expense.

quote:

The health insurance industry for one.

So there must be some reason why these two industries are experiencing this. For solving any problem we may want to look at how they are similar in structure or what market forces and incentives there is.

quote:

Continuing...

Yes, RT continue on... Nothing stopping you.

You have made plenty of descent points, but if you feel that nothing is wrong with the present system why bother with little itty-wittle me?

Carry on...

Ron,
you still never answered why you would compare public education to the oil industry?

Makes absolutely no sense.

You honestly resent, paying taxes for children's education? What about for roads, bridges? Firemen, police? Where do we draw the line on where our tax money goes? Who decides what is the best place to spend it?

Should we privatize every thing in our society? And just let the "natural" market decide where the money should go?

Like I said before Ron, I appreciate your intelligence regarding economics, but it is very dim in its scope.

I certainly don't want to live in your economic world.

Melissa, you might try: here or here...
Or just go with your assumptions that Education is in a category all to itself. Then I need to ask why ask why? But then only a government can continue to give inferior products at increasing price levels above even the base rate of inflation.

I will not answer what seems like to be rhetorical questions at the present time. Whether it is Britain's economic world or the USA, we all live in an economic world, it is only how we interpret it. Even Pol Pot could not change that...

Ron,
I am now beginning to fully understand the gerbil statement

Ron, something that occurred to me while driving across Wyoming yesterday. Mel asked why you insist on comparing public education to the oil industry and you never gave a good answer. Comparing those two industries isn't even like comparing apples to oranges -- at least apples and oranges are both fruit. It's more like comparing apples to knitting needles; a category error.

Instead, answer this one. Since a big theme in Lib/Con criticism of public education is the lack of competition (not entirely true, BTW, with charter and magnet schools in the mix) why do we see such similar price increases in higher education? After all, there is plenty of competition among colleges. I should know, I just sent my oldest off to college a couple months ago. She's a bright kid, but not an Honor student or anything. Still, she was accepted to all the schools she applied to and was getting plenty of junk mail from a lot of others as well.

So I stand by my earlier conclusion: When I look at the sectors where the price increases are outstripping inflation, education and health care in particular, I see situations where technology can potentially positively influence the outcome in terms of quality, but the nature of the beast is such that it is unrealistic to expect, or even desire for that matter, increases in productivity measured in the conventional industrial sense.

RT, I am glad that you thought about these issues more. So you agree that charter and magnet schools are a form of competition? Do you think home schooling could be competition also?

quote:

So I stand by my earlier conclusion: When I look at the sectors where the price increases are outstripping inflation, education and health care in particular, I see situations where technology can potentially positively influence the outcome in terms of quality, but the nature of the beast is such that it is unrealistic to expect, or even desire for that matter, increases in productivity measured in the conventional industrial sense.

Quality is a measurement of productivity. So this has been an interesting discussion...

quote:

RT, I am glad that you thought about these issues more. So you agree that charter and magnet schools are a form of competition? Do you think home schooling could be competition also?

As they are alternatives, of course. Sort of by definition. I think charter schools perform a more important function than just providing competition, however. They can serve as crucibles for experimentation in alternate methods of teaching and organization that, if successful, can be incorporated into the larger public school system. Also, kids are individuals and they have different learning and thinking styles. Personally, I'm a very visual thinker. I have to be able to draw a picture in my mind to fully grasp a concept. How well I can do that, and how well a concept lends itself to that kind of visualization determines how well I can learn and understand something. On the other hand, I retain verbal information very poorly. I also believe I have a mild auditory processing deficit. Anyway, someone else with the opposite situation will learn best in a completely different teaching environment than will I. So charter and magnet schools can serve a very important function in that regard.

As to home schooling. I think it's the rare parent who can do a really good job at that across the full spectrum of subject matter that needs to be taught. For instance, I would feel perfectly comfortable with math, science, and social studies but I would be fairly hopeless with literature, music, or art. I know my limitations. Not to mention that the process of teaching is itself a learned skill that not everyone can be competent in.

Again I must commend you for your willingness to look at the issues as a challenge and not a hopeless cause beyond just throwing more money at the problem.

quote:

As to home schooling. I think it's the rare parent who can do a really good job at that across the full spectrum of subject matter that needs to be taught. For instance, I would feel perfectly comfortable with math, science, and social studies but I would be fairly hopeless with literature, music, or art. I know my limitations. Not to mention that the process of teaching is itself a learned skill that not everyone can be competent in.

This is an area that technology should be able to bridge any gap in the parents gaps in knowledge. I am sure most parents that home school are not experts in all fields.

I am probably the opposite that listening or watching a lecture is better in grasping the knowledge than reading a book. But a video could be just as effective as a live person for learning.

I am moving this post (by ren) over to this thread so I could answer it without disturbing the other thread detail. If so desired I can either move it or erase it.

quote:

quote:

Originally posted by /rén:

quote:

Originally posted by Ronald Rutherford:
Starting with the post today at Posted 16 November 2007 08:22 I see that 'Free Markets' and 'Free Marketeers' have entered our lexicon for this thread. And thus I feel that if we are to have a cooperative dialogue or the deep exploratory dialogue that Howard envisions then we should define what these two phrases mean or how they are to be used in our dialogue-or at least "Free Markets' to begin with.

Honestly, Ronald

You can't explain how you are using "nihilism", an obscure word with multiple possible referents, but now "we" have to settle the meaning of "free market"? How many ways of using it do you have in your mind?

I'm referring to the common understanding of a free market economy that all my conservative friends seem to understand and agree with. I'll settle for the Wikipedia description of it, and anyone who wants to use it as the problem solving model I'm asking about, would satisfy my questions:

Market economy

As Hayek and others have argued:

quote:

market economies allow spontaneous order; that is, "a more efficient allocation of societal resources than any design could achieve."[5] According to this view, in market economies sophisticated business networks are formed which produce and distribute goods and services throughout the economy. This network was not designed, but emerged as a result of decentralized individual economic decisions. Supporters of the idea of spontaneous order trace their views to the concept of the invisible hand proposed by Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations who said that the individual who:

quote:

"intends only his own gain is led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for society that it was no part of it. By pursuing his own interest [an individual] frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the [common] good." (Wealth of Nations)

Supporters of this view claim that spontaneous order is superior to any order that does not allow individuals to make their own choices of what to produce, what to buy, what to sell, and at what prices, due to the number and complexity of the factors involved. They further believe that any attempt to implement central planning will result in more disorder, or a less efficient production and distribution of goods and services.

Perhaps the key part is in this phrase:

quote:

A true free market economy is an economy in which all resources are owned by individuals, and in which decisions about the allocation of those resources are made by individuals without government intervention.[6]

Where we find a concept about the "allocation" of resources. In this case water.


I have had a fair number of discussions with Howard, and he has yet to transmit to me any vision of a cooperative dialog, which would start first with some sort of example from him, I suppose. If anyone else has a vision of what he is talking about, more power to them.

Free Marketeers: those who espouse the principles of the free market as a sought for ideal.

Wasn't Walt Disney a Freemarketeer? I seem to recall he was an anti communist. I don't know if that translates.

It looks like this may be a condition of 'failure to communicate'. Your link is to the "Free Market Economy" as in:

quote:

A true free market economy is an economy in which all resources are owned by individuals, and in which decisions about the allocation of those resources are made by individuals without government intervention.[6]

But as it said in the link:

quote:

No pure market economy exists. Thus, almost all economies in the world today are mixed economies which combine varying degrees of market and command economy traits. For example, in the United States there are more market economy traits than in Western European countries.[4]

Recently someone had asked what type of economy do we have and I said on the thread "mixed". But your link above is to a macro economic phenomenon. When I had a chance to see Naomi Klein talk recently she also mixed up the ideas of an economy and markets. And thus when I refer to Free market(s), I am referencing the concepts of:

quote:

A free market is a market where prices of goods and services are arranged completely by the mutual non-coerced consent of sellers and buyers, determined generally by the supply and demand law with no government interference in the regulation of costs, supply and demand. The opposite of a free market is a controlled market, where government sets or regulates prices directly or through regulating supply and/or demand.[1] Although a free market necessitates that government does not regulate supply, demand, and prices, it also requires the traders themselves do not coerce or mislead each other, so that all trades are morally voluntary.[2

Thus I would refer "Free Market Economy" as to a macroeconomic concept and "Free Markets" as the microeconomics concept. Thus on the thread Pray for Rain (but deny Global Warming) I have been looking at the microeconomics of a free market and nothing has so far indicated that any market is free as defined by "free markets".

I found the following article really interesting on many levels. Right now it does not look like a good deal but if LIBOR goes down or we think the US Dollar could reverse course especially over the long term then it could be a good deal but risky... Long-distance lenders

quote:

Originally posted by Randomthots:
I haven't noticed that private schools are particularly cheap either,

I read in one of Al Franken's books (I don't remember which) that money spent per pupil in private schools dewarfs the amount of money spent per pupil in public schools. He was rebuting Limbaugh's tirades on public school waste. Private schools operate more effeciently than public shools? Yeah right.

quote:

Originally posted by Randomthots:
They're a bizarre bunch all right. I should know, I spent a few years self-identifying as one of them before I came to my senses.

Me too. Eventually the yawning gap between reality and idealogy became too great for me.

Now sometimes when a libertarian is argueing with me I want to say, "There is nothing you can tell me or explain to me about libertarianism that I don't already know, because I used to be one." But I don't, because I want to engage them in debate. Many of them are not aware that there is a reasoned response to the Right Wing, because the Left has never provided it. These people live in a conservative world where the assumptions of the Right are just accepted, like gravity is accepted. I have seen them genuinely flumaxed when presented with reasoned ideas that oppose conservative arguements. It is something that never existed in their world before.

quote:

This is a crowd that will have serious debates over whether private citizens should be allowed to carry nuclear weapons, whether we should tolerate a religion that practices human sacrifice, or whether parents actually have any moral or legal obligation to feed their children

I once had an arguement with a Libertarian in which he defended dead bodies floating in the water in the streets of New Orleans.

They hear their heroes on talk radio and cable TV makeing libertarian arguments in a format where they are not opposed. When they try it in the real world and start bending their own observable reality to meet their idealogy the results get pretty bizarre.

quote:

Originally posted by meljomur:
Random,
This is just Ron's MO, I don't think he honestly believes half the crap he writes, just seems like a bored rich man, with too much time on his hands, and pretty uninteresting people in which to engage in, in his "real" life. But of course this is just my soul opininion

I enjoy Ron's (and the other conservatives) input here. He is willing to engage in much more honest debate than most cons ever will. Without the conservative posters this board would be boring.

What is more boring than a bunch of liberals talking amongst themselves about the world's problems? In my opinion that is one of the reasons why liberal talk radio has had problems taking off. Thom seems to have found a way around that by haveing numerous conservative quests on his show. They keep it "shocking," and he gets to make his reasoned-but-otherwise-quickly-boring-well-thought-out responses in a format people will listen to. Stephanie Miller keeps it interesting by keeping it racy. The rest of the liberal hosts are pretty lack luster in my opinion, when compared to their conservative counter parts.

Please don't run off the conservatives.

Yeah, I like Thom and Stephanie a lot, too. Randi Rhodes is a hoot -- she's perfectly willing to call a spade a spade and she's got a kind of whisky-soaked old broad thing going that I like (even though she's hardly on old broad, pretty hot actually). Ed Shultz is good, too, but I get bored after about an hour because his format is too like the conservatives that rant on and on about the same thing for whole show. I also disagree with his whole-hearted support for the farm bill. Even farmers I know -- and I know quite a few -- agree that it's a piece of crap and they don't deserve that kind of subsidy.

I agree with you on Ed Shultz. When I first tune in I find him interesting. He has, like Limbaugh, a great radio presence. But he is so centrist that he's just not entertaning for very long. I have only briefly heard Randi Rhodes. She was on terrestial radio here in Memphis, but they changed the format to all sports now. I listen to so much radio in the truck that when I am not in the truck I try to avoid it.

I think the prefect liberal talk show host would be a redneck who has a conservative-on-social-issues schtick going on, but who is a populist on economics -- a mix of Imus's racism, O'Reily's homophobia, Howard's filth, Savage's rants, and Hartman's populist economics. It may not be koser, but I think that would play well in the heartland.

You drive truck so you hear the "mix" on Channel 19. Nixon's southern strategy peeled that crowd away from the Democrats, and Reagan cemented it. And now the libs don't wanna get close to it for fear those people will make them look bad. Holier than thou liberals.

IMO To win a permanent majority and to control the frame of the debate liberals are gunna have to have a big enough tent to include dumbasses.

Currently there is a large working class crowd that is pissed at corporate abuse but who don't have a political home. I'm not a political historian, but I think that there may never have been a time in America when so much has been up for grabs. If a political figure could just catch the zeitgeist, we could see big changes in the political landscape.

John Edwards is coming frustratingly close on this. He is an economic populist who plays to the racists just by being a white Southerner and plays to the homophobes by saying gay marriage is a struggle for him and lets his wife take up the liberal slack by saying she is pro gay marriage. It is a brilliant strategy, but it will it catch fire?

quote:

IMO To win a permanent majority and to control the frame of the debate liberals are gunna have to have a big enough tent to include dumbasses.

I think the real key is to neutralize the abortion thing. Actually, all the social issues for that matter. The grandest master stroke for the Repugnicrats was to get the religious folks in their corner.

There's really no particular reason to connect the economic issues to the social issues aside from equal rights for minorities. Conservative economics are very much antithetical to the "Do unto others..." message of Jesus. I also think He would have a problem with the Iraqi occupation, waterboarding, etc.

I may be wrong about the economic connection, though. I recall a conversation I heard on the radio once back when the Faith Based Initiatives were a hot topic. This guy was going on about how prisons were such a ripe field for missions because the prisoners were in such desperate straits.

So when Cons go on about how government social programs are bad because they create dependency, I have to wonder: Is it really dependency per se that they are against or is it really that they are okay with dependency but they just want people to be dependent on THEM and THEIR religions?

Thanks for your kind words, ert.

quote:

Originally posted by east_river_trucker:

quote:

Originally posted by Randomthots:
I haven't noticed that private schools are particularly cheap either,

I read in one of Al Franken's books (I don't remember which) that money spent per pupil in private schools dwarfs the amount of money spent per pupil in public schools. He was rebutting Limbaugh's tirades on public school waste. Private schools operate more efficiently than public schools? Yeah right.

The economic issues of schools has always fascinated me from at least afar. After that post maybe you need to have some more school also. LOL-just kidding.

I had an employee working for me as a single mother of two as a sales person in a retail store and she sent her two children to a private school in Inglewood, CA. She sent her daughter to Saint Mary's Academy and the Tuition and Fees come to $5,600 per year. LAUSD spends about $17,000 per child per year. And of course even with out reimbursement of any kind she felt her child would get a better education at Saint Mary's Academy than that hell hole called Inglewood High.

We could open a thread to discuss these issues if you want and maybe provide some information about what was shown in the book...

quote:

Originally posted by Randomthots:
I think the real key is to neutralize the abortion thing.

I'm not sure on that. I think polling data shows that being pro abortion may be bringing more people into the tent than it is driving away (the inverse of gay marriage data), although granted it is driving people away in droves.

If RvW was overturned it would change little in America. Already only rich women can get abortions in places like MS and SD, the states that would make it illegal. I think the case could be made that the Democrats are shooting themselves in the foot over this issue.

quote:

There's really no particular reason to connect the economic issues to the social issues aside from equal rights for minorities.

I don't know why more liberals aren't making the arguement that solving economic issues would solve many social issues. Sound economics is the basis for all freedoms. A man is not free who is not economicly free. Liberals will go to the mat for the right for non whites to get into a white restaurant. They march, protest, make asses of themselve, open social wounds that take decades to heal and when the non white gets into the restaurant they can't afford anything on the menu. It seems liberals fight it ass backwards, pardon my French.

quote:

Conservative economics are very much antithetical to the "Do unto others..." message of Jesus. I also think He would have a problem with the Iraqi occupation, waterboarding, etc.

I come from the German pacifist part of PA. My grand parents spoke Pennsylvania German as childern. The religous support of the right wing has always puzzled me. I was stunned when I got amoung Southern Baptists and heard their war mongering and observed their violent reaction to even petty criminals.

quote:

So when Cons go on about how government social programs are bad because they create dependency, I have to wonder: Is it really dependency per se that they are against or is it really that they are okay with dependency but they just want people to be dependent on THEM and THEIR religions?

Brilliant observation. That would be a great comeback on the con canard that liberals want people dependent on them. The cons want the people in their pews stupid and relying on them for leadership. And now we're gunna pass the plate to raise money for a good conservative cause -- and also the pastor's private jet.

quote:

Originally posted by Ronald Rutherford:
She sent her daughter to Saint Mary's Academy and the Tuition and Fees come to $5,600 per year. LAUSD spends about $17,000 per child per year.

Tuition is not the same thing as money spent per pupil. I think all parochial schools are hugely subsidized by the churchs that support them. Hence the money spent per pupil is far far greater than the money spent per pupil in a public school. Even though the school administration only charges a single mother a small portion of the real cost. This is great that they do this. This is real Christianity at work, not the baloney kind we see in Republican debates.

quote:

She sent her daughter to Saint Mary's Academy and the Tuition and Fees come to $5,600 per year. LAUSD spends about $17,000 per child per year.

How much was the tuition at St. Mary's being subsidized by the diocese?

Another point to consider especially with the Catholic schools: Are the teachers Nuns? Because I would imagine that their payroll costs are a tiny fraction of a public school where you actually have to pay people.

quote:

Tuition is not the same thing as money spent per pupil. I think all parochial schools are hugely subsidized by the churchs that support them. Hence the money spent per pupil is far far greater than the money spent per pupil in a public school. Even though the school administration only charges a single mother a small portion of the real cost. This is great that they do this. This is real Christianity at work, not the baloney kind we see in Republican debates.

Then ert, maybe you can show how much they are subsidizing their tuition rates. I feel 100% confident it is not over $10,000 per student. Another rate structure I found interesting was: Calvin Christian School from Calvin Christian School. They state:

quote:

The approximate cost of operation per student for 2007-08 is $4,300 for kindergarten, $6,100 for grades 1-8, and $6,500 for high school. These amounts are in the highlighted row in the guide.

Which seems reasonable to me these rates instead of $17,000 per child. Just think of a class having 30 children (a little high but good for comparison). So costs to the district is 30*$17,000= $510,000. Besides the labor of one person how can so much resources be used to produce such shoddy workmanship?

RT, I would suggest you look into that.
I see only very (extremely) positive reviews of that school. Maybe Nuns are better teachers. Hell maybe that is an idea. Get rid of the teachers unions and create a class of workers based on 'Nunnery'.

Well RJR, one thing to consider when comparing Calvin Christian (that's the same church denomination I grew up with, btw) is their location in Minneapolis, one of the lowest housing cost cities in the country compared to LA which is one of the highest. You would naturally have to pay your staff a lot more just to live in LA. That probably doesn't make up for all the difference but it would be part of it.

It's also a more than a little unfair to compare public schools and private schools for "quality of outcome" when public schools basically have to take anybody that comes in the door while private schools can be more selective. You could also argue that anyone willing to pony up the extra cash for the tuition is probably a lot more invested in their child's education as well.

Lots of variables to consider. You can't just pick one parameter to focus on and draw your conclusions from that. At least not if you are at all interested in intellectual honesty.

My point about Calvin (although glad you grew up with them) was that it states that the costs are contained within the standard/average cost structures. Notice the one in Inglewood (inside the LAUSD area) is less. Calvin Christian would only subsidize those having lower income.

I may have been better to pick a better school since they do have school choice. Here is some numbers to compare Current per-pupil expenditure: $8,109.

Unless someone can show me the amount that 'special cases' cost extra then I really do not buy the case of public schools 'take anybody' and thus quality of outcome should be lower.

So show me that I am wrong...

Well, I'm familiar with one religious school. Nuns teach over half the classes at a stipend of $100 a month each. Teachers are hired at 1/3 less than public schools. They prefer to teach there.

There is no expansion of the school system. Millions per year on new buildings just don't enter into the equation.

Most maintenance on the building is done by volunteers who live in the parish. A lot of parents donate their time in the classroom.

Is this a cheaper way to go? Sure.

It isn't very likely that a public school can hire teachers for $100 a month.

Are special needs students accepted? No. They are cost prohibitive. Police aren't hired to patrol the halls. There are no school bus costs.

Retired Monk
"Ideology is a disease"

From Andover's websight (the private school of choice for the Bushs):

quote:

Tuition for 2007-2008 is $37,200 for boarding students and $29,000 for day students. Please note that the average cost to educate a student at Andover will be approximately $62,600 for the coming year.

From Yahoo Finance:

quote:

The average-median tuition (which is an average of the median tuition costs of each grade) for a year at independent schools that are not affiliated with a religion is $17,145 for day students and $33,533 for boarding school students, according to 2005-2006 data from the National Association of Independent Schools.

Bold face added by me.

Keep in mind that the average of the medians is something different from a straight average. The median doesn't reflect how much of the data is spread out above the median price. One low cost school will pull the median down, and make the median cost look desceptively low.

I'm not sure what the heck an "average-median" is or why someone would use an average-median in this case (maybe for political reasons? to make it look more fair?). Does the person who wrote that not know the difference between median cost and average cost, hence the "average-median?" Or do I misunderstand something? Or was it the average cost of the median cost computed by what part of the country the schools are in? Who knows.

At any rate it appears that non-parochial private tuition is considerably higher then public shool tuition. This still doesn't account for large endowments that are in effect subsidizing the costs of schools like Andover.

Seriously Ron, can anyone with a straight face make the argument that private schools are cheaper than public? Just the number of students per class room/per teacher should be a tip off.

By the by, isn't the Nunery a Union? Of sorts?

Got links???

From the sameyahoo page:

quote:

"There's just (so) much that I don't do because I made this choice," says Ann Botticelli, who budgets around the $1,400 monthly payments for her son's high school tuition.

Private schools for the masses!

As a personal note: I was sent to a parochial school in rural Pennsylvania that was dirt cheap (funded comunally by the church - no one paid tuition at all) that was much worse (academically) than the surronding public schools. Non of the brothers (except one, who had a couple semsters at a local college) or sisters that taught me had any education higher than a high school education, no knowledge of the sciences at all, not even a rudimentary knowledge of a foreign language; but they were good on the moral lifestyle stuff.

quote:

Originally posted by Ronald Rutherford:
Got links???

yahoo page

pdf file from andover's web page

quote:

I'm not sure what the heck an "average-median" is or why someone would use an average-median in this case (maybe for political reasons? to make it look more fair?). Does the person who wrote that not know the difference between median cost and average cost, hence the "average-median?" Or do I misunderstand something? Or was it the average cost of the median cost computed by what part of the country the schools are in? Who knows.

What it sounds like to me is that they take the median cost for 1st grade, the median cost for 2nd grade, 3rd grade, etc. and then average those out. So you would be taking the average of 12 medians. I suppose that makes sense since a high school student should cost more because of labs, sports teams, etc.

But you're deluded if you think Ron will shut up about this no matter how much data you pull up. This is a religious thing for him.

And now, in regards to the "quality of outcomes" half of Ron's rants...

Comparing Private Schools and Public Schools Using Hierarchical Linear Modeling

Basically there is very little statistically significant difference between public and private schools when the data is controlled for relevant factors. Sometimes the public schools even beat the private!

When you really look closely at the situation Ron's entire thesis is built on stereotypes and anecdotes.

quote:

Originally posted by Randomthots:
What it sounds like to me is that they take the median cost for 1st grade, the median cost for 2nd grade, 3rd grade, etc. and then average those out. So you would be taking the average of 12 medians. I suppose that makes sense since a high school student should cost more because of labs, sports teams, etc.

Yeah, I see that now. Don't now why I missed that. The author states clearly what the medians are.

Not only that but:

quote:

One low cost school will pull the median down, and make the median cost look desceptively low.

What the heck was I thinking? One low number will not pull the median down. In fact, the whole point of using the median is because it is not effected by low lying numbers. It's been a long time since I slept through statics 101. And nobody flamed me on that. It's a slow day on the message boards today.

quote:

What the heck was I thinking? One low number will not pull the median down. In fact, the whole point of using the median is because it is not effected by low lying numbers. It's been a long time since I slept through statics 101. And nobody flamed me on that. It's a slow day on the message boards today.

Actually it puts less weight on outliers on the upper scale. How can an out-lier be so low as to affect the averages? I think if you look at the data you will see that.

For a closer look at NAIS: How parents pay for private school|NAIS (My Blog).

But plenty of interesting points made by our discussion so far. Thanks...