[OutsiderFan]

Wow, this thread sure has taken a turn for the interesting.  Lots of good perspectives shared.

In the end, the question still is are markets the answer to everything?  Though I would probably concur with Rick Scott that an anthropology degree in most cases doesn't have a lot of economic value, education is not necessarily suppose to be about producing economic value, or if it is, it ideally is produced more indirectly than directly.

What I mean is I don't have an anthropology degree, but I took anthropology classes in college, just as I took geology, economics, geography, psychology, geography, and Native American studies.  And I was a business major.  The point being I became educated in college and learned how to think critically.  That is how I produce value.  To me, becoming educated about how the world works was a lot more valuable than learning how to be a programmer, something I used to do.  Reducing the degree down to job skills alone is not the mission, or at least sole mission of higher education, IMO.

All we have to do is look at the country we live in and see the problems it has and can't solve, to tell us our education system is failing us.  In fact, it seems to me that if we produced more educated people, stopped emphasizing skills that employers want, and quit reducing the value of a degree to what job you can get, paying you how much to do what after graduation, the whole system would be much more capable of serving society.  Educated people make sound decisions, they understand cause and effect, how to formulate positions and defend them using facts and evidence, not personal attacks and emotional responses that can't be supported by anything other than "because" or "I just feel this way."  If educated people determine they need to learn a specific skill, they will learn it.  But part of the value of an education is to allow people to be informed so they make sound decisions in all areas of their lives.

The only people that don't want true education are the people who have something to lose by the masses becoming truly educated.  Such people want to see to it automatons are produced that reinforce and perpetuate their own version of how society should be organized and in a way that does not challenge their grip on how things are done.  I mean does the World Bank really want farmers to be farming organically?  Hell no.  It wants farmers to get in debt to buy tractors and pesticides so they can ultimately make those farmers indentured servants and ultimately take their land when they can't pay their debts.  Cancer is the only thing we know of that grows unchecked (which most people would say is a very bad thing), yet we continue to try to grow our population and have been conditioned that growth is the answer to everything, without much thought at all to the actual cost incurred in the near and especially the long-term for following high growth principles.

If we reduce the entire education system to market forces, it is questionable if we will reach our potential as a species.  But then, the geologist and astronomer in me realizes how insignificant everything we do is and how we're all gonna die, so I default to what is fun. 

Is there any football to talk about? :)

[OutsiderFan]

Wow, this thread sure has taken a turn for the interesting.  Lots of good perspectives shared.

In the end, the question still is are markets the answer to everything?  Though I would probably concur with Rick Scott that an anthropology degree in most cases doesn't have a lot of economic value, education is not necessarily suppose to be about producing economic value, or if it is, it ideally is produced more indirectly than directly.

What I mean is I don't have an anthropology degree, but I took anthropology classes in college, just as I took geology, economics, geography, psychology, geography, and Native American studies.  And I was a business major.  The point being I became educated in college and learned how to think critically.  That is how I produce value.  To me, becoming educated about how the world works was a lot more valuable than learning how to be a programmer, something I used to do.  Reducing the degree down to job skills alone is not the mission, or at least sole mission of higher education, IMO.

All we have to do is look at the country we live in and see the problems it has and can't solve, to tell us our education system is failing us.  In fact, it seems to me that if we produced more educated people, stopped emphasizing skills that employers want, and quit reducing the value of a degree to what job you can get, paying you how much to do what after graduation, the whole system would be much more capable of serving society.  Educated people make sound decisions, they understand cause and effect, how to formulate positions and defend them using facts and evidence, not personal attacks and emotional responses that can't be supported by anything other than "because" or "I just feel this way."  If educated people determine they need to learn a specific skill, they will learn it.  But part of the value of an education is to allow people to be informed so they make sound decisions in all areas of their lives.

The only people that don't want true education are the people who have something to lose by the masses becoming truly educated.  Such people want to see to it automatons are produced that reinforce and perpetuate their own version of how society should be organized and in a way that does not challenge their grip on how things are done.  I mean does the World Bank really want farmers to be farming organically?  Hell no.  It wants farmers to get in debt to buy tractors and pesticides so they can ultimately make those farmers indentured servants and ultimately take their land when they can't pay their debts.  Cancer is the only thing we know of that grows unchecked (which most people would say is a very bad thing), yet we continue to try to grow our population and have been conditioned that growth is the answer to everything, without much thought at all to the actual cost incurred in the near and especially the long-term for following high growth principles.

If we reduce the entire education system to market forces, it is questionable if we will reach our potential as a species.  But then, the geologist and astronomer in me realizes how insignificant everything we do is and how we're all gonna die, so I default to what is fun. 

Is there any football to talk about? :)

[jayasena]

Private ventures fund hundreds of failed companies for every blockbuster like Google or Facebook.

True. But they do with money of willing investors. Government investments fail with my money, which was not provided voluntarily. The difference is huuuuuuge.

My point was that the value of the blockbuster successes outweigh the numerous failures. The fact that willing private investors embrace a model with similar odds was merely in support of that. Apologies if that wasn't clear.

And personally, I'd be perfectly happy with a model where those who do not wish to subsidize research don't have to do so as long as they don't free-load on the subsequent benefits... if someone can figure out how to make that work for pervasive developments like the internet.

Back on the original topic, it appears the Forbes article overstated the extent of the proposed changes. UF responds: http://www.forbes.com/sites/danbigman/20...epartment/

[jayasena]

Private ventures fund hundreds of failed companies for every blockbuster like Google or Facebook.

True. But they do with money of willing investors. Government investments fail with my money, which was not provided voluntarily. The difference is huuuuuuge.

My point was that the value of the blockbuster successes outweigh the numerous failures. The fact that willing private investors embrace a model with similar odds was merely in support of that. Apologies if that wasn't clear.

And personally, I'd be perfectly happy with a model where those who do not wish to subsidize research don't have to do so as long as they don't free-load on the subsequent benefits... if someone can figure out how to make that work for pervasive developments like the internet.

Back on the original topic, it appears the Forbes article overstated the extent of the proposed changes. UF responds: http://www.forbes.com/sites/danbigman/20...epartment/

[LuckE2Bhere]

Wow - some very interesting points, OutsiderFan, though I have to admit that I've never seen that conspiracy theory about the World Bank!?!?  How exactly does the World Bank make those farmers take those Trojan Horse loans that they apparently don't want or need?  ;)

I doubt that any of us believes that markets are "the answer to everything".  I guess my view is somewhat related to the point that Churchill made about democracy (a.k.a., the worst form of government... except for all others!).  If governments and blog-posters were better than the clearly-flawed "markets" at allocating resources "fairly" (just try defining that for any sizable population!), we could certainly do away with such things.  I believe that our country's relative "success" (all things considered) over the past couple of hundred years suggests that relatively "free markets" do tend to do a better job of that than central-planners, but reasonable people can certainly agree to disagree on that point.  Of course, even those characterizations over-generalize, as no modern society as functioned with either complete "freedom" or a complete absence of market forces (even if they may take political forms, or exist in "black markets").  It's really a question of how much of each represents an "ideal" (but likely still flawed) balance of the two... to each his own preference!

[LuckE2Bhere]

Wow - some very interesting points, OutsiderFan, though I have to admit that I've never seen that conspiracy theory about the World Bank!?!?  How exactly does the World Bank make those farmers take those Trojan Horse loans that they apparently don't want or need?  ;)

I doubt that any of us believes that markets are "the answer to everything".  I guess my view is somewhat related to the point that Churchill made about democracy (a.k.a., the worst form of government... except for all others!).  If governments and blog-posters were better than the clearly-flawed "markets" at allocating resources "fairly" (just try defining that for any sizable population!), we could certainly do away with such things.  I believe that our country's relative "success" (all things considered) over the past couple of hundred years suggests that relatively "free markets" do tend to do a better job of that than central-planners, but reasonable people can certainly agree to disagree on that point.  Of course, even those characterizations over-generalize, as no modern society as functioned with either complete "freedom" or a complete absence of market forces (even if they may take political forms, or exist in "black markets").  It's really a question of how much of each represents an "ideal" (but likely still flawed) balance of the two... to each his own preference!

[Redrum]

It's just limited to the military/political elite.  It's not a prison camp so much as boutique market for privileged thugs.

[Redrum]

It's just limited to the military/political elite.  It's not a prison camp so much as boutique market for privileged thugs.