"Dumb things that Americans believe" -Newsweek

[Crystallas]

Our money is basically worthless..It isnt backed by gold or anything anymore.

And I understand your value that if someone with money is buying stuff it puts money into the pockets of others and allows them to buy things. That is true. The thing is in this country you have people who have so much money there is no way they can possibly spend it all. Most of them just horde it in investment accounts (in which that money just circulates among other rich people) and the money doesnt do the economy a whole lot of good.

Yes, this is true. The gold standard was great, and it still is a standard of some sorts, however the currency problems didn't grow until Nixon decided to pull the last plugs on the gold standard for defining a credit line for the economy. Unfortunately we are also at some form a victim to the "evil rich" who want everyone to spend hundreds of thousands on college, to gain almost nothing of value in the real world. If the government did not fund the majority of schooling, then colleges would fail, although that does not mean higher institutions of learning would cease to exist by any means, maybe with privatizations, we may see more real value education. We lock onto this idea of traditionalism, and don't even pay attention to where this money is going.

And venturing into tax cuts. The idea of supply-side economics was to put more money into the riches hands so they would use it to expand their businesses and hire more workers and spend more on goods in the economy. It works temporarily, but then suffers because they just start hording their money. Its been true in 1929, 1987, and now 2008. Its been tried 3 times in the countries history and led to the same thing all three times.

Thanks to establishing the power of the FED, which fails to use any form of democracy or capitalism. And also thanks to establishing the federal income tax. The Great Depression, stagnations and recessions of the current and past have all happened because the politicians with expertise in winning elections felt they knew better than the rest of us, when it comes to our day to day lives.

 

[Crystallas]

Capitalism as an economic system itself has not caused wars..I was talking about our views on capitalism. The American System that has individual abuses of power. That problem does happen in all systems because individuals seek it. And America is basically the police of the world and it will run into these problems now. But defense companies do have a self-interest and war is good for business (obviously).

I agree, there is no need to police the world. Moral obligation holds too many conflicting views, and no country should assume the views of it's people, then use threat or force onto other nations.

 

[Scoot26]

Yes, this is true. The gold standard was great, and it still is a standard of some sorts, however the currency problems didn't grow until Nixon decided to pull the last plugs on the gold standard for defining a credit line for the economy. Unfortunately we are also at some form a victim to the "evil rich" who want everyone to spend hundreds of thousands on college, to gain almost nothing of value in the real world. If the government did not fund the majority of schooling, then colleges would fail, although that does not mean higher institutions of learning would cease to exist by any means, maybe with privatizations, we may see more real value education. We lock onto this idea of traditionalism, and don't even pay attention to where this money is going.

I support a public education system that is essentially paid by property taxes because to me that allows everyone to attend school and get a basic education. Colleges have always been higher education but now about every company requires a bachelors degree requiring more and more people to go to college for no reason other than a piece of paper.

I went to a for-profit college at DeVry. I saw value in it until they change their way of doing education. All classes became 8 weeks instead of 15 weeks that it was when I started and only went once a week. The value of the classes decreased and I felt I learned nothing in those 8 week courses compared to 15 weeks. Everything was moved towards being online at DeVry as well. I just feel I accomplished more with the 15 week courses than 8 weeks, and I wasnt the only one at the school who agreed with me, plenty felt that way.

However, thats just one example, and only one I have. The company to me was doing it right at first but then changed to a system that devalued the student and just brought them more money.

 

[Scoot26]

I agree, there is no need to police the world. Moral obligation holds too many conflicting views, and no country should assume the views of it's people, then use threat or force onto other nations.

Agreed. Personally I feel we should just come back to our borders..secure them...Not saying we dont let people in, just saying this whole "we fight them over there so they dont come here" is bullshit. Our intelligence communities should be so good that they should be able to find anyone trying to get into this country. Plus I feel if we stopped meddling in other peoples affairs they would not feel the need to attack us.

 

[Crystallas]

I would support a public education if teachers unions did not exist. But I also have a very complex view on ways to create an education system that would generate more value per student, and give teachers fair opportunities to give them more than competitive wages.

My problem with the current systems, is that consequences and rewards are not taught in a way, where children challenge themselves. Instead many children need to be challenged. This makes the teachers jobs harder, and the parents obligation turns into a gray area for so many parents who see the daily time-slot as some kind of day care, so they can work.

 

[Scoot26]

I would support a public education if teachers unions did not exist. But I also have a very complex view on ways to create an education system that would generate more value per student, and give teachers fair opportunities to give them more than competitive wages.

My problem with the current systems, is that consequences and rewards are not taught in a way, where children challenge themselves. Instead many children need to be challenged. This makes the teachers jobs harder, and the parents obligation turns into a gray area for so many parents who see the daily time-slot as some kind of day care, so they can work.

I agree with you...I wasnt saying I'm at all pleased with the public education system. It just seems its only based on test scores, funding is based on test scores and their way of accountability sucks.

To me it became too politicized. I dont think the teachers union is to blame for it either (though I'm sure you could find a few cases of it), to me it really started when the Federal government became deeply involved in it. To me it should be left up to local officials and paid for that way..Maybe the state could have some say, but in the end i think the federal government should be completely left out of public education.

The only thing they should have oversight in is that Jim Crow laws arent brought back. No one should be denied education based on the color of their skin or any sense of discrimination. Thats about the only power the Federal Government should have.

 

[Crystallas]

My gripe with teacher unions, is that of most modern unions. I believe no matter what system, unionized or not, you will have good and bad teachers. But what bothers me the most about the teachers union, is the steps involved for reprimand and means of terminating a bad teacher, or a teacher who doesn't care anymore. If I were a good teacher, and I taught 5th grade for example, and the previous grade was taught by a terrible 4th grade teacher, then I wouldn't be too happy, especially when it would take a toll on everyone around them.

And yes, Jim Crow laws shouldn't have happened in the first place. Cultural effects happen regardless of law, why amplify it? Those were a total abuse of power.

 

[Scoot26]

My gripe with teacher unions, is that of most modern unions. I believe no matter what system, unionized or not, you will have good and bad teachers. But what bothers me the most about the teachers union, is the steps involved for reprimand and means of terminating a bad teacher, or a teacher who doesn't care anymore. If I were a good teacher, and I taught 5th grade for example, and the previous grade was taught by a terrible 4th grade teacher, then I wouldn't be too happy, especially when it would take a toll on everyone around them.

Agreed, you will have good and bad teachers (or workers) in the case of any union. I think there are good things unions do, and of course bad things. The case of a teacher not being let go because of an union is not right. Especially in a school system where its usually more than just one person making the decision to terminate someone. In some places, you might have one person making that decision to terminate someone and I can see where a union might be coming from in an unfair practice.

And then of course, there is corruption of unions that make them no better than the companies they work for.

 

[Scoot26]

Crystallas, since I know you are for no regulations, I'm curious what your thoughts on net neutrality are then?

 

[Captain Iago]

I support a public education system that is essentially paid by property taxes because to me that allows everyone to attend school and get a basic education. Colleges have always been higher education but now about every company requires a bachelors degree requiring more and more people to go to college for no reason other than a piece of paper.

I went to a for-profit college at DeVry. I saw value in it until they change their way of doing education. All classes became 8 weeks instead of 15 weeks that it was when I started and only went once a week. The value of the classes decreased and I felt I learned nothing in those 8 week courses compared to 15 weeks. Everything was moved towards being online at DeVry as well. I just feel I accomplished more with the 15 week courses than 8 weeks, and I wasnt the only one at the school who agreed with me, plenty felt that way.

However, thats just one example, and only one I have. The company to me was doing it right at first but then changed to a system that devalued the student and just brought them more money.

My wife worked in HR for a company downtown in 2000/2001 for a while and she was told to put any resumes that listed DeVry in the circular file as it was a "quick fix" to earning a degree. This line of thought has been out there for a while and you have it dead to rights in your opinion, I think.

I also have other thoughts on following points of view, but something has come up and I'm out the door.

 

[Gustavus Adolphus]

I think there needs to be a balance between free market and regulation. Some regulations are good, some are overdone, and some regulation is just an overreaction to some event (For example this egg recall currently going on that is just a simple cause from corruption of local government).

Airline ticket prices used to be regulated so in order to get your business, airlines like United and American used to hire the good looking flight attendants, have good meals, and try their best to make the flight as on time and as comfortable as possible.

Then they deregulated the industry, ticket prices went up, airline food went to shit, and flight attendants became stewardesses and got fat.

In that case, the free market decided where the best airline would be, which obviously is Southwest right now. So it comes down to decision of whether you want comfort or a cheaper price.

The people have spoken.

 

[Crystallas]

Crystallas, since I know you are for no regulations, I'm curious what your thoughts on net neutrality are then?

Right idea, wrong method. We have the Wiretap Act, the 1st Amendment, Fair Use laws, Copyrights, and the Net Act, which were all designed to protect that majority of people/users/creators. I would say the Net Act was originally intended well, but when you pair that up with the Patriot Act, the expansion of the Net Act, the FCC guidelines attached to ISP and hardware specifications, consumer protection laws, cryptography laws, and heck, I know most of them, but I'm not going to name them all here, there are just so many... When you have so many overlapping jurisdictions and regulators, adding Net Neutrality would just add to the confusion, and some of the existing regulations would still trump the new regulations. It's a legal nightmare, and you are at the mercy of the judicial system and some very special lawyers.

Right now we are at the point where the government needs to A: Simplify ALL Laws for the average user/consumer, B: Abolish most of the regulations. C: Have a fair set of rules that benefit no end-user/commercial/educational/governmental/non-profit ect more than another, and it needs to fit on one page in plain as day english that are internet specific without violating any constitutional rights.

The internet should be as free as possible, especially when you can't hurt another person, just the software or hardware they run with potential system exploits.

And for the record, I am not against regulations and I'm not an anarchist. I am a consequential libertarian. We hold our differences from general libertarians and conservatives. However, I can make an argument for deregulating just about anything, that doesn't mean it is what I specifically believe or preach. In many cases, we have decent regulations, however in even more cases, the regulations accuse people of being guilty before they even do anything wrong.

 

[Scoot26]

Right idea, wrong method. We have the Wiretap Act, the 1st Amendment, Fair Use laws, Copyrights, and the Net Act, which were all designed to protect that majority of people/users/creators. I would say the Net Act was originally intended well, but when you pair that up with the Patriot Act, the expansion of the Net Act, the FCC guidelines attached to ISP and hardware specifications, consumer protection laws, cryptography laws, and heck, I know most of them, but I'm not going to name them all here, there are just so many... When you have so many overlapping jurisdictions and regulators, adding Net Neutrality would just add to the confusion, and some of the existing regulations would still trump the new regulations. It's a legal nightmare, and you are at the mercy of the judicial system and some very special lawyers.

Right now we are at the point where the government needs to A: Simplify ALL Laws for the average user/consumer, B: Abolish most of the regulations. C: Have a fair set of rules that benefit no end-user/commercial/educational/governmental/non-profit ect more than another, and it needs to fit on one page in plain as day english that are internet specific without violating any constitutional rights.

The internet should be as free as possible, especially when you can't hurt another person, just the software or hardware they run with potential system exploits.

And for the record, I am not against regulations and I'm not an anarchist. I am a consequential libertarian. We hold our differences from general libertarians and conservatives. However, I can make an argument for deregulating just about anything, that doesn't mean it is what I specifically believe or preach. In many cases, we have decent regulations, however in even more cases, the regulations accuse people of being guilty before they even do anything wrong.

Ok that pretty much answers my question..You support a net neutrality..just not the proposed law because it wont do enough. Agreed. I just think the internet needs to be protected from companies that want to get together and make the internet not free and equal..such as what Google and Verizon have proposed doing and what AT&T and Comcast want to do through their provider service.

And I will be sure to mark that in the record that you are a consequential libertarian lol.

 

[Scoot26]

Airline ticket prices used to be regulated so in order to get your business, airlines like United and American used to hire the good looking flight attendants, have good meals, and try their best to make the flight as on time and as comfortable as possible.

Then they deregulated the industry, ticket prices went up, airline food went to shit, and flight attendants became stewardesses and got fat.

In that case, the free market decided where the best airline would be, which obviously is Southwest right now. So it comes down to decision of whether you want comfort or a cheaper price.

The people have spoken.

Crystallas might be able to tell you, but its my understanding Airlines weren't really deregulated..they were re-regulated in a sense that the airlines were given more control and wrote the regulations themselves. When corporations are allowed to write the regulations themselves they corrupt the business and allow a small few to benefit.

It initially allowed airlines to lower prices to compete and thats what they did..in the long run it bankrupted their sense of doing business as the service became crappier and then 9/11 and fuel costs have nearly bankrupted the business. Now we have a problem where pilots are EXTREMELY underpaid and some day that will in fact all come crashing down (and sad to say, but I'm pretty much talking literally there). I guess it makes me glad I do not fly often.

The free market in the best way it could did decide Southwest was the best airline because they put together the best service. The airline industry fails to understand people will pay a little bit more for better service (well most people). Instead they just use gimmicks like small fee add-ons and charging for checked baggage's instead of just including that in airfares. The industry as a whole, I really dont understand because it seems like it use to flourish and pilots were paid handsomely. What happened...I dont know.

 

[Scoot26]

My wife worked in HR for a company downtown in 2000/2001 for a while and she was told to put any resumes that listed DeVry in the circular file as it was a "quick fix" to earning a degree. This line of thought has been out there for a while and you have it dead to rights in your opinion, I think.

I also have other thoughts on following points of view, but something has come up and I'm out the door.

Well..if you get the time I'm sure we'd like to hear it

 

[Crystallas]

Crystallas might be able to tell you, but its my understanding Airlines weren't really deregulated..they were re-regulated in a sense that the airlines were given more control and wrote the regulations themselves. When corporations are allowed to write the regulations themselves they corrupt the business and allow a small few to benefit.

It initially allowed airlines to lower prices to compete and thats what they did..in the long run it bankrupted their sense of doing business as the service became crappier and then 9/11 and fuel costs have nearly bankrupted the business. Now we have a problem where pilots are EXTREMELY underpaid and some day that will in fact all come crashing down (and sad to say, but I'm pretty much talking literally there). I guess it makes me glad I do not fly often.

The free market in the best way it could did decide Southwest was the best airline because they put together the best service. The airline industry fails to understand people will pay a little bit more for better service (well most people). Instead they just use gimmicks like small fee add-ons and charging for checked baggage's instead of just including that in airfares. The industry as a whole, I really dont understand because it seems like it use to flourish and pilots were paid handsomely. What happened...I dont know.

The short deregulation was to allow competition from Europe. Without it, Americans were threatened with no air passage through some of the key commercial airports overseas. That deregulation was a good thing for everyone in the short run. Unfortunately we also had OTHER issues that hurt the airline industry, and none of which contradicts what Prope has said.

Lockheed Martin, Delta, Boeing, McDD ect all had some major grants from the government to develop both military aircraft and commercial aircraft. Somewhere in the middle of a massive spending spree to obtain as many patents and control over the industry, we saw the rise of the concord, which ended up being an engineering success(for that point and time) and additional competition in the world of airfare. By free market choice, people slowly declined on using such travel because of it's safety and health concerns, which basically blew a ton of money on what became dead projects. Both the manufacturers and airlines took a hit, and the government took a double whammy on some astronomical amount of money. Because we had to diversify THAT much money, we didn't get the steady improvements in technology, that you normally see in most sectors.

Without a good 5-10 years of natural, steady improvement, the high risk venture hurt us, and some people(even those that have the same economic views as myself) believe that the regulations had the higher impact on the industry than anything. This was just a case of classic mis-management by funding the private sector. If Boeing(or whoever) didn't see the need to compete with British Airlines, then they probably wouldn't have, or maybe they would have revisited the ideas when they made more sense.

My point is that more factors were in place than regulating and deregulating.

 

[payton 34ever]

This is actually good discussion that i thought would turn out bad. lol

I'll second that....I'm impressed, guys - the discussion on this thread and the way it's being handled make the Bears fans on that "other" board look like neanderthals. Kudos - it's nice to have a place like this to have an interesting and intelligent discussion.:woot:

 

[cubsneedmiracle]

Quality here on CCS.

EVEN WITH POLITICS

 

[Scoot26]

Quality here on CCS.

EVEN WITH POLITICS

:buttrock:

I was leery to discuss politics on a forum from bad experience on another forum (I'll just say ...it was PSD) but we've managed to be civil here and actually have intelligent debate.

 

[Captain Iago]

I would support a public education if teachers unions did not exist. But I also have a very complex view on ways to create an education system that would generate more value per student, and give teachers fair opportunities to give them more than competitive wages.

My problem with the current systems, is that consequences and rewards are not taught in a way, where children challenge themselves. Instead many children need to be challenged. This makes the teachers jobs harder, and the parents obligation turns into a gray area for so many parents who see the daily time-slot as some kind of day care, so they can work.

But while I agree that unions (no matter what profession) can certainly protect the wrong people, you only have to go back around a century to see why they began and, in fact, can be a good thing.

Unfortunately there are a lot of problems with the current system - even beyond the ones you state as you very well know. One thing I see though is that there are a lot of teachers (I would even venture to say most that I've encountered) would welcome the challenge (and even already have welcomed the challenge brought forth by NCLB and strive to get the best out of their students) that makes their job harder. Unfortunately, NCLB has also resulted in negative consequences - teaching to high stakes tests and a putting such an emphasis on skills that concepts are not being taught/learned.