Heh. This is what happens when you start to say everything left of Palin is Socialism; it loses its impact. No longer a bogeyman word.

I think it's that socialism works in other countries, and works quite well. While in the US capitalism has become very predatory, everyone is out to tie you up in confusing deals and contracts or hit you with hidden fees. There's almost no straight forward business being done when it comes to things that are considered "necessities" by most citizens.

Healthcare, every one says they are doing what they do to keep costs down...overwhelmingly your experience at the doctors office gets shorter and shorter, they order more tests that show nothing and you pay more and more. Most doctors, if you have even the slightest cause for a test, they are off the hook for frivolous tests....you should be able to trust the doctor to have your best interest in mind and not withhold information to earn themselves referral fees and what not.

Banking, just look at all the fees fiascos we've been having recently. Then look at the mortgage situation, they were filling out completely false paperwork in people's names and submitting it. Now they are coming to take your house, whether they have a right to do legally or not. They aren't so helpful with loans anymore either, you'll find it more difficult to get a reasonable loan (than say 7 years ago), despite all the federal aid and such they took in.

Phone, you have so many fees on cell phones and landlines. They used to toy with area codes and have "local long distance" areas that would change randomly over periods of time. I remember a friend of mine could walk across the street and make a no extra fees local call while at his house it was local long distance rates. It's equivalent to roaming on cell phones.

Internet, not only are they trying to pass laws to censor everything they rape you on most plans. You pay the same or more for less every year as they over burden their networks and never expand. Then complain about all the congestion like they weren't adding more people the whole time and it's YOUR fault.

Air travel, you get felt up, treated like a criminal, and you better have a smile on your face while this is all going down. Plus pay extra for your bags, use special containers, etc etc.

The idea of capitalism is great, but only when the companies can't leverage their monopolies or size to quit being competitive and become predatory. And we have predatory capitalism, where instead of offering the best possible services for the lowest possible prices, you get less and less as time goes on for the same money. Or they offer a "standard service" but it becomes more costly as times goes on for unexplainable reasons in many cases that usually end up being "Rising costs" but no one knows where or why they are rising.

Plus there's more and more barriers to entry for small businesses who only make enough to support their employees. New required licensing for a job they've never required licenses for previously, minimum insurance coverage for their work, minority ratio requirements if you are working on something that is receiving public funding.

And then we have outrageous requirements for jobs, such as 4 year degrees for jobs that even 10 years ago probably didn't have those requirements.

Rising education costs which pair up with the above point, making it even costlier to simply function in our capitalist society. Less apprenticeships and similar training programs to receive hands on experience under a working professional.

30 years, it's just become more and more complicated to do anything at all many times with no good reason for it being that way beyond allowing a small group of people to exploit everyone else.

capitalisum

socalisum

comunisum

Are totally useless words ( in the sense of which is better or worse societies) unless you specifcaly define them in a given societal context and describe the specifics of the society ( as alluded to in the video)

All of them can be good or bad depending on how they are set up , things are further confused by govoning people or groups describing themselves wrongly in in-order to get public support.

For example USA is described in general as a capitalist democracy when in reality its a corpocracy with a small degree of democracy.

Russa in the 70-90s described itself as communist when in reality it was State Capitalism even up until putin and probably still is now.

>> ^direpickle:

Heh. This is what happens when you start to say everything left of Palin is Socialism; it loses its impact. No longer a bogeyman word.


Reminds me of: http://videosift.com/video/Stephen-Frys-Planet-Word-Episode-3 ...too bad it's dead

So naive to think someone can can run on a socialist platform even though many people see it as a better system than our current whacked out 1984 corporatism / socialism for the rich / pre-fascism. Theoretically, yes, realistically - probably not. If you want socialism (I do), prepare for a bloody, bloody battle (I am down). Why do you think they passed a bill to allow military action on American soil? The corrupt powers that be are prepared to do whatever it takes. Prepare, brother's and sister's our time is nigh.

You know who's the biggest fan of socialism? Corporations.

You wanna punish those evil "capitalists"? Make them have to actually compete in a real free market instead of lobbying congress for special interests. Let them suffer the consequences of leveraging their business with 30 to 1 bets. Hold government accountable for colluding and giving them trillions in free "loans" to manipulate the market. Hold government accountable for ignoring and refusing to go after banking fraudsters, the same fraudsters that are "donating" millions to election campaigns and special slush funds for government officials.

Socialism always has and always will be a deception. On multiple levels. You give power to one group of people (government) to plunder from another and you think this group of people is going to be fair?
And if any government around the world does practice something closer to true socialism (like Libya for example), then we're going to bomb the shit out of you. And all you so-called progressives will be leading the cheer for it.

Both systems can lead to the same kind of corruption and misery when the other is not around to keep things in check. We need an even balance between the two. Same goes for individualism vs. cooperation - we need both to survive.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Both systems can lead to the same kind of corruption and misery when the other is not around to keep things in check. We need an even balance between the two. Same goes for individualism vs. cooperation - we need both to survive.


Hear, Hear.

@Porksandwich"Socialism works in other countries, and works quite well."


Does this apply to socialist countries outside of northern Europe?

Socialism works in Scandinavia because it's full of Scandinavians. Scandinavians in the US - regardless of whether their family has been here 100 years or 1 year - are like East Asians and Jews in the US... they contribute to society at a rate far above other cultural groups.

If the US was full of Scandinavians it would rank similarly to Scandinavia, regardless of the differences in economic systems. US outcomes in general are driven by cultural groups.

>> ^marbles:

You know who's the biggest fan of socialism? Corporations.
You wanna punish those evil "capitalists"? Make them actually have to compete in a real free market instead of lobbying congress for special interests. Let them suffer the consequences of leveraging their business with 30 to 1 bets. Hold government accountable for colluding with them and giving them trillions in free "loans" to manipulate the market. Hold government accountable for ignoring and refusing to go after banking fraudsters, the same fraudsters that are "donating" millions to election campaigns and special slush funds for government officials.
Socialism always has and always will be a deception. On multiple levels. You give power to one group of people (government) to plunder from another and you think this group of people is going to be fair?
And if any government around the world does practice something closer to true socialism (like Libya for example), then we're going to bomb the shit out of you. And all you so-called progressives will be leading the cheer for it.


There is never a "free market" and "free maket " as a saying is redundant and useless people use it all the time to counter socialisum but it makes no sense.

for example say you removed governments from the markets compleatly and just let market forces dictate everything , who do you think would win out ? the people with the most money would and the people with the most money would use that money to advertise more and more so regardless of the actual value of there product or service they would still make money.

the deregulation of the markets is specifically what lead to the sub prime fiasco , and ethor way raw consumption based capitlosum is fundimentaly floored when there are finite resources and ultimately things have to be managed by what makes things better for people and not whats the most profatable thing to do.

I would be intrestead to know what you would define as "free market" because I'm prity sure that people using the term "free market" in reality mean highly regulated capitlisum but with the regulation coming from the general population and scientific consensus instead of what we have now where the regulation comes from cooperate interest.

If that's the case you are basically talking about a socialist society with capitlisum balted on not a "free market" capitlist society.

>> ^chilaxe:

@Porksandwich"Socialism works in other countries, and works quite well."

Does this apply to socialist countries outside of northern Europe?
Socialism works in Scandinavia because it's full of Scandinavians. Scandinavians in the US - regardless of whether their family has been here 100 years or 1 year - are like East Asians and Jews in the US... they contribute to society at a rate far above other cultural groups.
If the US was full of Scandinavians it would rank similarly to Scandinavia, regardless of the differences in economic systems. US outcomes in general are driven by cultural groups.


It would be a lie to say you knew every aspect of every country without living in those countries to judge whether it "works" or not. You'd have to live at every income level and in various locations within each country to really KNOW for yourself. For example the US works quite well if you are a billionaire, but not so much if you make minimum wage. Your opportunity chance is going to be a magnitude higher as a billionaire, and if you fail you won't be destitute...versus the minimum wage worker.

With that said, there is a general theme in the US that if they don't believe they came up with the idea, plan of execution and implementation without basing any of it on "other" countries then we don't want it.

The common argument during the universal healthcare debate was that while other countries offer it, it wouldn't work in the US. And that's where the explanation usually ended, they would always follow up with the US needs to come up with it's own solution. And then inevitably it would be slight changes to the current system that already doesn't work for many. Then we would ignore that something like 30-35% of the US population is already receiving Medicare/Medicaid coverage that would typically be considered a universal healthcare program if it included everyone else.

It was a really disingenuous argument when you consider that they are trying to keep corporations involved in healthcare and never considered that maybe they should throw them out of the decision making process until they've come up with a plan. Then figure out how they could allow them in that wouldn't be detrimental.

I just think they never looked at other countries implementations to see what they could use for a framework in the US and see what would be required to implement it corporations or not.

But the point of all this is that, despite the evidence that things work in other countries. The US fosters the idea that borrowing ideas from other countries and suiting them to ourselves makes us inferior, and we'd rather stew in the mess we've created until we can come up with something wholly uninfluenced by things outside the country rather than try to fix it sooner by looking abroad. This would be a fine mentality if we didn't cut funding on things that were designed to give us the edge when it comes to discoveries of new things and ideas throughout various fields. There was a time when we were openly giving many of those findings to other countries to do what they will with them, but now we in turn are too good to look at them and consider what we could gain from their methods.

Our government is there to serve and protect it's people, but it doesn't protect them from corporations through regulations or limitations of the powers they have over us. SOPA and John Doe piracy lawsuits are good examples. Mortgage crisis is better. None of those serve the people or the society the people make up. And corporations are not people, so they are part of the society but they do not create the society. Corporations should exist as long as they are beneficial to society, not a minute longer.

It may be cultural group driven, but it seems the younger people are willing to abandon cultural beliefs to attempt something else so they have a chance at a future. We as a nation are unwilling to undo what we have done...we look at our past and despite there being evidence of marching down a slowly declining path that is becoming steeper and steeper.....we continue downward. Now we have to wonder if it's so dark we can't see the huge spiked pit with the very narrow walkway for the well off to tread upon. While the rest of us walk blindly into the pit.

Wool over our eyes, blinders, cart on a lead. Tracks to the cliffs edge. Whatever analogy you want to use.

Edited for clarity and thinking ahead and using the wrong word in a couple places.

@Porksandwich

The US does experiment with socialism.

Here in California, we have some of the highest taxes and most liberal policies in the country, but our academic scores are now the dumbest in the country and the state is on the verge of bankruptcy.

If that's what you mean by socialism, nobody wants more of that. People would much prefer how California used to be (one of the nicest places in the world, with high academic scores and a globe-leading economy).

So what socialism experiments plunged California into the state it is in now that didn't exist when it used to be one of the nicest places in the world?



>> ^chilaxe:

@Porksandwich
The US does experiment with socialism.
Here in California, we have some of the highest taxes and most liberal policies in the country, but our academic scores are now literally the dumbest in the country and the state is on the verge of bankruptcy.
If that's what you mean by socialism, nobody wants more of that. People would much prefer how California used to be (one of the nicest places in the world, with high academic scores and a globe-leading economy).

"Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning?"

There is hope yet.

>> ^Porksandwich:

So what socialism experiments plunged California into the state it is in now that didn't exist when it used to be one of the nicest places in the world?

>> ^chilaxe:
@Porksandwich
The US does experiment with socialism.
Here in California, we have some of the highest taxes and most liberal policies in the country, but our academic scores are now literally the dumbest in the country and the state is on the verge of bankruptcy.
If that's what you mean by socialism, nobody wants more of that. People would much prefer how California used to be (one of the nicest places in the world, with high academic scores and a globe-leading economy).



If smug liberals can't figure out what they did even in retrospect, these discussions are a waste of time.

Focus on building your own life and career to insulate yourself from the permanent decay of society you caused and are still causing.

I don't live in California so
1) I am not sure what you are talking about besides everyone suffering economically since 2007-2008.
2) I am not saying socialism is the way to go, but ignoring it's merits and continuing down a path that is not producing desired results is not helping the situation.
3) How do you insulate yourself from society when by interacting with it, you are apart of it?
4) Who is that second line directed at? I can assure you I did not cause any permanent decay of society. People with money and power are the culprits you seek, not your neighbor.
5) I am not sure of the time period when you classify California as one of the nicest places in the world. Many people probably think it's still pretty nice given it's mild weather.

>> ^chilaxe:

>> ^Porksandwich:
So what socialism experiments plunged California into the state it is in now that didn't exist when it used to be one of the nicest places in the world?

>> ^chilaxe:
@Porksandwich
The US does experiment with socialism.
Here in California, we have some of the highest taxes and most liberal policies in the country, but our academic scores are now literally the dumbest in the country and the state is on the verge of bankruptcy.
If that's what you mean by socialism, nobody wants more of that. People would much prefer how California used to be (one of the nicest places in the world, with high academic scores and a globe-leading economy).


If smug liberals can't figure what they did even in retrospect, these discussions are a waste of time.
Focus on building your own life and career to insulate yourself from the permanent decay of society you caused.

@Porksandwich

I guess you didn't click the link? Replacing a naturally high-performing population with the least skilled members of less skilled societies is why California now permanently has the stupidest academic scores in the country.

@chilaxe

The link you had with the text "Can't figure what they did" is the same one you used to argue "US outcomes in general are driven by cultural groups." Are you trying to say that allowing (as if they could stop it without A LOT of cost) immigration is replacing the population?

I could see that, but I am not sure why that is considered a specifically socialist policy. I know they could stop immigration somewhat, or at least make them illegal immigrants by not giving them the paperwork they need to stay. But beyond that, can they really stop a legal immigrant from living in the state? I couldn't see the connection you were making to socialism honestly.

@Porksandwich

Whatever policies get increased by a shift to socialism are fair to call socialist. In this case, that's endless unskilled immigration.

Liberals/socialists sabotage every effort to put limits on unskilled immigration, so we can't pretend it's just too difficult a task to make progress on.

@chilaxe

Not much I can argue there. You are there and I am not. But no major problems as the US is facing all across the nation is as simple as one problem or solution. So I find it hard to believe that California's only issue is immigration. And Im not denying that great influxes of people have lots of impact, but it's going to be a problem whether it's immigration or population growth.

We bring you peace.
>> ^chilaxe:

@Porksandwich"Socialism works in other countries, and works quite well."

Does this apply to socialist countries outside of northern Europe?
Socialism works in Scandinavia because it's full of Scandinavians. Scandinavians in the US - regardless of whether their family has been here 100 years or 1 year - are like East Asians and Jews in the US... they contribute to society at a rate far above other cultural groups.
If the US was full of Scandinavians it would rank similarly to Scandinavia, regardless of the differences in economic systems. US outcomes in general are driven by cultural groups.

>> ^Porksandwich:

@chilaxe
Not much I can argue there. You are there and I am not. But no major problems as the US is facing all across the nation is as simple as one problem or solution. So I find it hard to believe that California's only issue is immigration. And Im not denying that great influxes of people have lots of impact, but it's going to be a problem whether it's immigration or population growth.


Cognitive complexity is the master trait for success in complex societies, so when you substantially reduce the average cognitive ability of a state, you increase all socially undesirable metrics.

This includes poor academic scores, income inequality, poor medical outcomes, poor financial management, high crime, and poor child-rearing practices.

For example, basic things like parents taking their children to the dentist has plummeted here, even though it's free for lower-income people.

>> ^gwiz665:

We bring you peace.
That's what they say, but then before you know it they're playing Abba and eating fermented herring pizza.

@chilaxe

What does this video have to do AT ALL with ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION?! Nothin.

So why don't you "chilax" with all your "cognitive complexity" master race, jingoist, racist, segregationist rhetoric.

Immigration by non-whites ≠ Socialism

You're scapegoating on minorities cause dim to understand something as cognitively complex as: helping other human beings.


And just FYI, Randall Parkers racist, jingoist, segregationist tirades from a collection of opinion articles entitled - Immigration Societal Decay - DOES NOT qualify as "evidence" of marxist communist EVIIIL socialist experiments in the US.. or anywhere for that matter.



..you old racist ass, anti-multiculturist bigot.

@GenjiKilpatrick

Try to elevate intellectual discourse and be a champion of science even if it goes against Western cultural mores. This was a key point you were looking for: "Whatever policies get increased by a shift to socialism are fair to call socialist."

Before you resort to insults, you should be prepared to explain how advocating East Asian, Scandinavian, and Jewish immigration is anti-immigration. Asians do count as minorities, even though they score so much better than white people that liberals discriminate against Asians in college admissions.

My direct experience with Asians (specifically Indian origin) at college were that a lot of them were admitted with scholarships or worked as teaching assistants to pay back what they owed as the difference. Many of them were in the graduate program while I was in the undergraduate, but my last two years there about half my classes were graduate classes with a couple projects removed for undergrads.

And what I witnessed to make up the higher than average test scores of the Indian students was that they would cheat. I had one of them turn around during a test and try to cheat off of my work. I turned him in so I wouldn't be blamed if he copied word for word something before I noticed, nothing happened.

They would take past students homework, put their name on it. Photocopy it 5 times and all the indians in the class would turn it in as their own work. They would get together to work on projects, despite it not being group projects...it was all heads on one screen for hours on end.

So, they may test better and score better, but after speaking with a few....their society doesn't seem to punish cheating like you have here in the US. So I don't put much stock in scores, I spoke with a number of them and they had their smart members who carried the dumb ones along.

And the reverse can also happen. The dumb ones can smother the smart ones potential. Seen it happen while I was in school, "jocks" who were obviously very intelligent would blow off classes and homework because it wasn't what the other guys in their group were doing. These were white folks mostly.

And then you have native born US people of white or black families who are just not capable of mathematics beyond simple multiplication and division. And don't absorb most subjects, but might be a wizard at automotive or electrical given the opportunity. Perhaps they are developing more slowly than others, or perhaps they will never be capable of what you expect of them. But they reflect poorly in your scores, and are not immigrants.

That doesn't mean there isn't a place for them in society.

Now if you tell me that the jobs that would normally be there for folks like this are just swamped by the immigration.....then that's another thing they should be accounted for.
Or if their low scores are holding back other students, that's nationwide...and I'll agree it's a problem that needs to be addressed.


Obviously in immigrants or native born, if you don't see improve in certain cultures after one generation...something is wrong. And it can't simply be that these people are from a certain background that is incapable of adapting...they are human after all.

But I don't think immigration is causing the flaws you see. I think they are exacerbating the problem that already existed prior to their arrival. And that native born and people with established cultural centers in those areas have learned to adapt to and taught to the new arrivals.

A few flaws I saw while in high school:

- Over indulgence in sports programs. The books would be literally falling apart and they would be paying to have a new sports complex built. Saw this in a number of schools. I even did some work on one once I was out of high school. Multi-million dollar project where half of it was in their field and complex. The other big chunk was for the administration, and a quarter or less was put into stuff for the kids...you know the reason the place exists in the first place. The common thinking was that the sports complex would "make them money", except if it had to pay it's own way and cover the payments on the property, upkeep costs, etc...it would spent it's entire years "earnings" in a single month. But the board thought it was making money, despite what everyone else told them. While the actual classrooms were all cost (in their eyes)....even though they should be the core of the school's focus and were rarely without issues. Leaking roofs, leaking windows, etc.

- Teachers overworked. Many of them had extra curricular things they were in charge of in addition to teaching class, grading homework, meeting with parents, etc. Some even worked second jobs so they could supplement their income....especially the newer teachers.

- Teachers over-controlled. Discussion was kept a little too politically correct in most explanations of topics. It makes it more difficult to wade through the language to get to the lesson being taught. Sometimes some plain spoken wording would have made it much more clear. Dancing around the holocaust and civil war subjects are doing a disservice to their impact.

- Teachers reciting from text books. Basically in these cases the teachers didn't know the subject well enough to explain it to others. These people should no be teaching. I knew of parents who would come in and remove students from particular teachers classes because they had older siblings who told their parents how horrible this teacher was. I had to suffer through because I couldn't convince my parents, and I think it hurt me in the subject of mathematics for quite sometime following that class. I lost a lot of interest in the subject because of this teacher.

- Stupid punishment. I had principals who would bend over backwards for sports players especially soccer and football, but would threaten me with detention and what not every time they thought I was doing something. One example stands out. Big snow the night before, they never plowed the township I lived in until right around the time school started. My vehicle wouldn't go in the snow, I had to go home and get a ride from my parents since their vehicle was heavier. Principal didn't believe me until the bus that would have been on my route showed up 20 minutes after I did. He threatened me with all kinds of stuff. And I lost another big chunk of interest in school, because why bother if they are going to punish you for nothing and let others slide for basically bullying other students.

- And I could go on and on. If you weren't a native English speaker or aware that all this above shit was common. You might think you were being singled out and only end up going because the law says you have to. And most times despite the evidence that the above does not work, it's just enforced more stringently...making it even less desirable to put up with all the BS.

Education might be considered a socialist program, but it's lost it's focus from education and put it into sports or administrative costs...or when it comes to college outrageous fees that have little to do with what you are receiving. Or....profit centered for many people involved. A capitalist way of thinking, and it's not WHY these places exist..it's against their nature to be this way. And it's going to affect the overall education of your population as costs rise and money is taken away from what should be it's only goal.

People who get "free" stuff usually like things being "free", and a corrupt government is more than happy to seize the money from the producers to buy the votes of the ignorant. Why should the producers continue busting a$$ only to have their 'extra' hard work taken away? Socialist paradises like mexifornia have been great for Utah and Arizona, which are more than happy to receive the fleeing companies voting with their feet.

Europe is in deep sh1t because of socialism, which sooner than later always fails. Even if you could tax everyone at 98% the unlimited wants of the people would outrun any government's ability to redistribute wealth.

Capitalism works, socialism 'sort of' works until it's literally too big NOT to fail.

There seems to be a general misconception by those on the right that Socialism is about helping lazy people benefit at the expense of those who work hard, while ignoring the fact that the rich got rich by stealing the wealth generated by the labor of those who worked hard. Even Marx agreed that those who don't work, don't eat. Socialism and liberals aren't about helping those who are too lazy to help themselves, but putting power back into the hands of those who are doing the labor who presently in the US have no power or voice.

The income line in most companies isn't a slant (/) from the start to the top, but a very slightly curved backwards L with very few people are on the top bar, and fewer still past the point where that slant and backwards L would cross if we were to imagine spending the same amount for payroll between the otherwise equal income distributions. Everything to the left of that cross point, below the slant and above the bottom of that backwards L is labor that has been stolen to feed those to the right of that cross point. Imagine if you will Company A and Company B. Both have the same number of employees in each position, and both spend the same amount a year on payroll. Company A bottom is about $15k a year, while the CEO makes $22 Million (they are the typical backwards L). Company B's top is $250k a year and their slant goes down from there. Now how steeply and where Company B's bottom is depends on a number of factors, but no matter what, the bottom will likely be higher, or at the very least their benefit package is much greater. But very few companies operate like B, most operate like A.

<snip a long and rambling rant to better summarize with:>
The problem, it should be made clear, isn't Capitalism. It is greed. When Socialism fails, it isn't because of Socialism itself, it is again, greed. Greed is the problem. Nearly every failure in society comes down to greed and some would argue religion, which itself could be argued is a greed issue. The bigger problem the right faces is that they are loving greed now, and think it is the answer to everything, when it is in fact the very thing that is causing problems.

@Porksandwich

I'm talking about north-east Asians (Chinese/Hongkongese/Chinese-Singaporeans, Koreans, Japanese, Taiwanese). Other Asians don't have the same significantly consistent high performance.

Increases in school spending don't significantly correlate with increases in student performance. You can't change someone's nature to make them like to read, and bad teachers & old textbooks can't turn a driven person with a good attitude into someone who doesn't like to read.

Chillaxe #1 !

It has nothing to do with their Asian heritage, and everything to do with immigrant characteristics and culture. African immigrants are actually the highest achieving group in the States:




According to America's national Census Bureau, close to 44% of Africans living in the US have a college degree, compared to 23% of the US population, making them the community with the highest rate of academic achievement in the States. A Reuters Africa Journal report by Marie Lora.

>> ^chilaxe:

@Porksandwich
I'm talking about north-east Asians (Chinese/Hongkongese/Chinese-Singaporeans, Koreans, Japanese, Taiwanese). Other Asians don't have the same significantly consistent high performance.
Increases in school spending don't significantly correlate with increases in student performance. You can't change someone's nature to make them like to read, and bad teachers & old textbooks can't turn a driven person with a good attitude into someone who doesn't like to read.

>> ^chilaxe:

@Porksandwich
I'm talking about north-east Asians (Chinese/Hongkongese/Chinese-Singaporeans, Koreans, Japanese, Taiwanese). Other Asians don't have the same significantly consistent high performance.
Increases in school spending don't significantly correlate with increases in student performance. You can't change someone's nature to make them like to read, and bad teachers & old textbooks can't turn a driven person with a good attitude into someone who doesn't like to read.


Praising athletics while scorning academics is a common trend in the US. It is most definitely disheartening to see the programs that only a small fraction of the student body participate in getting the lion's share of the budget. And increases in school spending also tend to get funneled away from the absolute educational needs and maintenance of the buildings to large projects such as a new school being built or new sports complex. It happens time and time again that the money ends up being spent on things that fall under the umbrella of "school budget" but are not directly related to education.

And I would agree that you can't change someone's nature, but you could spend time trying to identify their interests and fostering those. Math and Science are great, we need more but as you said you can't change their natural inclinations. Bad teachers are notorious for forcing material by the standard means rather than try to find out what would best suite them. Perhaps you need to see things written to retain knowledge, but you write slowly....and the teacher continues to throw a lot of information at you faster than you can write. That is not serving the purpose of education, and it is no big inconvenience or time sink to the class for the teacher to hand out a basic packet to follow along and add additional information to allow people to keep up. Hell I had college professors do this, so you could make your own notes on the subject but still have an organized list of topics pertinent to the lesson.

So short version: School spending does not mean spending toward education. Bad teachers can stunt progress of students through a number of means. Hell a person with a heavy foreign accent can make it hell on earth trying to follow along or do the required homework if they never write it down. A person who can learn in spite of all of this, probably has parents who've given them the time and means to do so or may even know much on the subjects themselves. An immigrant with uneducated parents who may only speak but not read or write English is going to find this much more difficult.

If my parents had taken me out of the US and into Mexico where very little was taught in English, and my parents spoke rough Spanish and couldn't read or write in Spanish....I'd find myself struggling as well. Especially if there was no time to tutor after school because I had to be home for chores or an after school job to make ends meet. Only an extremely exceptional person could prevail through that, and I refuse to believe that all Asians of the categories you mention have no additional help outside of school. And that may be where the focus should lie immigrants not of those categories, helping establish this foundation for their cultural groups and filling it with people who are familiar with their common backgrounds and beliefs to help them adapt. If they are naturalized, you are stuck with them now.....and just throwing them under the bus because they aren't the Asians types you hoped for as immigrants is not going to solve it. If they are willing to work and not undermining society through malice...they can be worked with to find a place for them. This goes for both natural born citizens and former immigrants.....ignoring huge swathes of your population is not a good idea.

Anyway, I don't view immigration as a national problem. Sure it has some influence on the overall problems the country faces, especially illegals. But the core of our problems are related to greed as has been stated, but policies that ignore the people and favor the profit machines whether they be individuals or corporations in spite of the people. And that's where the favor towards Socialism is springing up in the young, Capitalism may have worked but it is no longer allowing the young to establish a life that would even come close to that of their parents. They are reducing the opportunity chance as time goes on for each new generation by these choices. So I don't blame anyone for wanting to throw out what these decision makers cling to as sacred in favor of trying something else that may restore a little sanity into the system. After all, your citizenry needs a way to support itself without being a member of the armed forces, born wealthy, or just plain lucky.

>> ^chilaxe:

>> ^Porksandwich:
@chilaxe
Not much I can argue there. You are there and I am not. But no major problems as the US is facing all across the nation is as simple as one problem or solution. So I find it hard to believe that California's only issue is immigration. And Im not denying that great influxes of people have lots of impact, but it's going to be a problem whether it's immigration or population growth.

Cognitive complexity is the master trait for success in complex societies, so when you substantially reduce the average cognitive ability of a state, you increase all socially undesirable metrics.
This includes poor academic scores, income inequality, poor medical outcomes, poor financial management, high crime, and poor child-rearing practices.
For example, basic things like parents taking their children to the dentist has plummeted here, even though it's free for lower-income people.


Of course, this constant insistence that complex issues be wholly caused by one simple factor hardly illustrates any cognitive complexity on your behalf. Nothing in this world, especially when it comes to social issues, is as simple as you're making this out to be.

@longde

Cool. Societies need more immigrants that raise the average, and less immigrants that lower the average.


I don't see a link to those stats, but the following stats seem more accurate:

The US Bureau of the Census, 2009, finds that East Asian immigrants score the highest in bachelor's degree attainment: 66%. The numbers skew even more in the 2nd generation (the first generation born here): 72%. Additionally, the numbers likely skew even more for advanced degrees, rather than just bachelor's degrees.


Regarding general populations, we can make confident predictions about the future trajectory of nations based on the high average educational performance of poor areas in East Asia relative to the lower average educational performance of wealthier areas in Africa, the Middle East, Latin America, and Europe. Anyway, it's good to see the stories of the young scholars in that video.

In Soviet Russia the government controls the corporations.

@Stormsinger

Right, the education level of California being cut in half at exactly the same time that 15 million people without high school educations happened to enter the state is actually due to what... that California's schools are better funded than other states' schools?

We have to stand up for the most likely explanations for phenomena even if others don't like it.

I don't think there was ever an argument that importing 80 million low education workers into the country wasn't going to decrease measures of societal well-being. The new information here is that immigrants don't on average improve academically in later generations, regardless of many public spending efforts designed for that goal.

>> ^quantumushroom:

People who get "free" stuff usually like things being "free", and a corrupt government is more than happy to seize the money from the producers to buy the votes of the ignorant. Why should the producers continue busting a$$ only to have their 'extra' hard work taken away? Socialist paradises like mexifornia have been great for Utah and Arizona, which are more than happy to receive the fleeing companies voting with their feet.
Europe is in deep sh1t because of socialism, which sooner than later always fails. Even if you could tax everyone at 98% the unlimited wants of the people would outrun any government's ability to redistribute wealth.
Capitalism works, socialism 'sort of' works until it's literally too big NOT to fail.


Europe is in deep shit because USA DEREGULATED THE MARKETS and the whole of europe and USA are all tied into the same big banks.

In reality we live in a coperate run socity and thats because for the most part its a FREE MARKET in the sense that whoever has the most money can do what the fuck they like by lobying the goverment thats what you get when you let companies and money dictate things the people with the money own and run the goverment its as close to free market as you can get and hense why everything has fallen apart for the menny and benofited the few super ritch.

also look at crime rates and quality of helth care for countries that have better distribution of wealth you will find they are among the top.

What seems lost in translation for the left is, the "evil" corporations as well as the little guys have little choice but to ALL have lobbyists pursuing their own interests. Why?

Because government is too large and too powerful.

You can take your pick of which is the greater evil: 'greedy' corporations which can and do fail, or a permanent class/army of government bureaucrats untied to quality performance or market demand, and which has lobbyists to shame even the corporations.

I'd rather take my chances with the market.






>> ^westy:

>> ^quantumushroom:
People who get "free" stuff usually like things being "free", and a corrupt government is more than happy to seize the money from the producers to buy the votes of the ignorant. Why should the producers continue busting a$$ only to have their 'extra' hard work taken away? Socialist paradises like mexifornia have been great for Utah and Arizona, which are more than happy to receive the fleeing companies voting with their feet.
Europe is in deep sh1t because of socialism, which sooner than later always fails. Even if you could tax everyone at 98% the unlimited wants of the people would outrun any government's ability to redistribute wealth.
Capitalism works, socialism 'sort of' works until it's literally too big NOT to fail.

Europe is in deep shit because USA DEREGULATED THE MARKETS and the whole of europe and USA are all tied into the same big banks.
In reality we live in a coperate run socity and thats because for the most part its a FREE MARKET in the sense that whoever has the most money can do what the fuck they like by lobying the goverment thats what you get when you let companies and money dictate things the people with the money own and run the goverment its as close to free market as you can get and hense why everything has fallen apart for the menny and benofited the few super ritch.
also look at crime rates and quality of helth care for countries that have better distribution of wealth you will find they are among the top.

You blame this on liberals for some reason when it's the almost exclusively registered republican owners of companies that pay these low wage workers who come here for the shitty jobs, right?

Oh, and your budies over at Enron and so many others like them are the ones who nearly bankrupted this state.


>> ^chilaxe:

@Stormsinger
Right, the education level of California being cut in half at exactly the same time that 15 million people without high school educations happened to enter the state is actually due to what... that California's schools are better funded than other states' schools?
We have to stand up for the most likely explanations for phenomena even if others don't like it.
I don't think there was ever an argument that importing 80 million low education workers into the country wasn't going to decrease measures of societal well-being. The new information here is that immigrants don't on average improve academically in later generations, regardless of many public spending efforts designed for that goal.

This is such a BS way to frame the question of capitalism vs socialism.

We don't have pure capitalism or pure socialism...we never will nor does anyone else. We've had a hybrid system for a long time. There are always going to be shifts one way or the other and currently the future looks to be shifting towards socialism for things like healthcare. But that doesn't mean we suddenly drop all aspects of capitalism. Capitalism works quite well provided strong regulation to protect the safety and health of the populace. There is nothing wrong with profit...it's just the whole "profit at any cost" mentality that's hurting us.

Stop being binary. complex shit like this cannot be reduced to a simplistic capitalism v socialism argument

@volumptuous

So liberals bring in 80 million unskilled workers and sabotage all efforts to rationally control it, and you refuse to acknowledge that liberalism could improve in even the tiniest of ways.

California now has the dumbest test scores in the country due to the success of your ideology, but everything must be someone else's fault. Very mature and accountable.

I predict that an ideology that regards itself as unable to improve will not improve.