Quote: Original post by tstrimp

Quote: Original post by LessBread
China still has a communist government last I checked. Given your argument, they shouldn't be kicking our asses, but they are - and they're doing it with the help of corporations!

China is communist? In what way?

One party dictatorship? With the embrace of corporatism, China may appear to be only nominally communist, but the Chinese state (and thus the Communist party) is heavily involved with every aspect of business there, from ownership to planning and control. Investigate the matter for yourself, you'll see.

Quote: Original post by LessBread
Are Vouchers Destroying Public Schools? (March 31, 2009)

Hey look, I can post opinion pieces too! WILL SCHOOL CHOICE DESTROY PUBLIC SCHOOLS?

You look to European systems to fix our health care industry, why not education as well? If Sweden can subsidize private schools while maintaining excellent public schools, why can't we?

Quote: So, yes, UPS and FedEx would exist if USPS provided "free" shipping. Private schools exist even though public schools offer "free" education. I don't understand your beef with niche markets. Most people can't afford Jaguars or Cadillacs. It's not the end of the world.

If they existed (which no one has reasonably demonstrated how they would exist) there would be very little demand for them. As you stated, they would be a niche market. I don't have a problem with niche markets, I have a problem with you claiming that because there isn't an extremely high percentage of students in private schools, it must be because they don't provide a good enough service.

Quote:

Quote: Original post by tstrimp

Quote: And considering that educational services aren't truly free in that we pay for them through taxes, the differences fade away.

Only if you get your money back if you decide to persue other options.

Are you suggesting a tax credit for parents of children who attend private schools?

Not exactly, just pointing out how your comment was stupid. The differences don't fade away as you claim unless you only pay the tax if you use the service.

Quote: Yes, it would be a restructuring of the entire system. See the link above.

Nothing in that link suggests restructuring the entire system. Furthermore, so what if the system is restructured? You really think it's doing an adequate job now? Something obviously has to be done, our education compared to other first world nations is embarassing!

Quote: For ethnic and religious reason. Maybe they want their children to study the Bible or the Koran as religious texts rather than historical texts?

Keep attacking the religious aspect of the schools. That's the only thread you have to hold on to.

Quote: Program goes extra mile for Catholic education
Most of the 830 pupils who attend the Extra Mile schools are non-Catholic and low-income. An average of 70 percent of the pupils -- and as many as 87 percent in some schools -- have family incomes low enough to qualify for the free or reduced-price lunch program.

...

A survey conducted by the diocese last year showed 96 percent of the pupils who graduated from Extra Mile schools graduated from high school within four years. About half of them went on to either higher education, the military or trade schools. Not one has ever failed ninth grade.

"If you look at the attendance rate of kids in our schools, it's 94 to 95 percent attendance," said Sue Vertosick, director of programs for the diocese. "We have 35 percent perfect attendance at some schools. We don't lose a lot of families unless they are moving out or there are custody changes or factors beyond our control."

They have a 96% graduation rate (US average is around 70%) for students who attend their program, and this from poor families who often have an even lower graduation rate then the national average.

Quote: Original post by LessBread
One party dictatorship? With the embrace of corporatism, China may appear to be only nominally communist, but the Chinese state (and thus the Communist party) is heavily involved with every aspect of business there, from ownership to planning and control. Investigate the matter for yourself, you'll see.

China is clearly an authoritatian capitalist country. The number of private businesses continues to grow rapidly in China and economic regulation has shifted much more to the local level. The gap between the rich and the poor in China is greater then our own, and it's still growing.

Quote: China Lifts Obstacles for Private Industry
Zeng said the government would "actively guide and encourage private investment" and would "eliminate all restrictive and discriminatory regulations that are not friendly toward private investment and private economic development in taxes, land use, business start-up and import and export."

Most significantly, the statement dangled the prospect of unprecedented access to China's two stock markets ? in Shanghai and Shenzhen ? for China's private firms.

"Except for the areas that are related to national security and those that must be monopolized by the state, all the rest of the areas should allow private capital to enter," it added. Most economists say everything but the military, telecommunications and energy industries, along with some parts of the transportation sector, will be opened to private competition. State-run monopolies in exports, imports and manufacturing, for example, will be dismantled.

Being authoritarian alone does not make a country communist. If you ignore all of the economic aspects of communism, then sure, you can call China communist. With all the google searching you do, I'm surprised you don't know this. Perhaps you should investigate the matter for yourself, you'll see.

Quote: Original post by tstrimp

Quote: Original post by LessBread
One party dictatorship? With the embrace of corporatism, China may appear to be only nominally communist, but the Chinese state (and thus the Communist party) is heavily involved with every aspect of business there, from ownership to planning and control. Investigate the matter for yourself, you'll see.

China is clearly an authoritatian capitalist country.

No, government ownership and control of the means of production make it ineligible for the label "capitalism". If they are ostensibly independent companies that must adhere to strict government rules and guidance and receive government protection of monopoly status in return, then they are a fascist economic model. If they are departments of the government, then they are a communist economic model. I would be a little more comfortable calling China a fascist government over a communist one at this point, but really, splitting hairs.

Quote: Original post by capn_midnight
No, government ownership and control of the means of production make it ineligible for the label "capitalism". If they are ostensibly independent companies that must adhere to strict government rules and guidance and receive government protection of monopoly status in return, then they are a fascist economic model.

The means of production are in more and more cases owned by citizens. The companies are not setup as a protected monopoly. They compete with other companies within the SEZ. I'm sure they are regulated, but so are businesses in practically every other country in the world that we still label as capitalist.

Quote: Original post by tstrimp

Quote: Original post by LessBread
Are Vouchers Destroying Public Schools? (March 31, 2009)

Hey look, I can post opinion pieces too! WILL SCHOOL CHOICE DESTROY PUBLIC SCHOOLS?

That wasn't an opinion piece. The garbage from Turtel, that is definitely an opinion piece: "We need to scrap the public school system, once and for all, and the sooner the better." Clearly, voucher proponents are more interested in destroying public schools than in delivering improved educational services to the nation's children.

Quote: Original post by tstrimp
You look to European systems to fix our health care industry, why not education as well? If Sweden can subsidize private schools while maintaining excellent public schools, why can't we?

Maybe because Sweden doesn't have a history of 100 years of apartheid, a recent history of difficulties desegregating it's education system, a dominant political party of the last thirty years waging war on science and promoting religious fundamentalism.

Why are you so eager for the government to extend greater control over private schools any way?

As for fixing our health care industry, we don't need to look to Europe, we simply need to extend Medicare to cover everyone.

Quote: Original post by tstrimp

Quote: So, yes, UPS and FedEx would exist if USPS provided "free" shipping. Private schools exist even though public schools offer "free" education. I don't understand your beef with niche markets. Most people can't afford Jaguars or Cadillacs. It's not the end of the world.

If they existed (which no one has reasonably demonstrated how they would exist) there would be very little demand for them. As you stated, they would be a niche market. I don't have a problem with niche markets, I have a problem with you claiming that because there isn't an extremely high percentage of students in private schools, it must be because they don't provide a good enough service.

What do you mean, if they existed? Private schools exist and they serve a niche market. I don't recall claiming that private schools failed to provide good enough service. Could you point out what I wrote that led to you that interpretation? What I recall doing was asking a series of questions about the inability of the business model of private schooling to catch on.

Quote: Original post by tstrimp

Quote:

Quote: Original post by tstrimp

Quote: And considering that educational services aren't truly free in that we pay for them through taxes, the differences fade away.

Only if you get your money back if you decide to persue other options.

Are you suggesting a tax credit for parents of children who attend private schools?

Not exactly, just pointing out how your comment was stupid. The differences don't fade away as you claim unless you only pay the tax if you use the service.

What is stupid is the inability to spell pursue correctly. [Sorry, but if you're going to level the "stupid" attack, then at least bother to perform a spell check.] I don't use FedEx but my taxes pay for the roads that FedEx uses to make money. Where's my FedEx tax rebate?

Quote: Original post by tstrimp

Quote: Yes, it would be a restructuring of the entire system. See the link above.

Nothing in that link suggests restructuring the entire system. Furthermore, so what if the system is restructured? You really think it's doing an adequate job now? Something obviously has to be done, our education compared to other first world nations is embarassing!

I don't think you read it: "The disadvantage to this voucher approach, however, lies in the fact that if students begin to leave “District B,” then the school will eventually run completely out of funding." Destroying one district while building up another amounts to restructuring the entire system. As for embarrassing comparisons with other first world nations, are you sure you want to go there?

Quote: Original post by tstrimp

Quote: For ethnic and religious reason. Maybe they want their children to study the Bible or the Koran as religious texts rather than historical texts?

Keep attacking the religious aspect of the schools. That's the only thread you have to hold on to.

Quote: Program goes extra mile for Catholic education
Most of the 830 pupils who attend the Extra Mile schools are non-Catholic and low-income. An average of 70 percent of the pupils -- and as many as 87 percent in some schools -- have family incomes low enough to qualify for the free or reduced-price lunch program.
...
A survey conducted by the diocese last year showed 96 percent of the pupils who graduated from Extra Mile schools graduated from high school within four years. About half of them went on to either higher education, the military or trade schools. Not one has ever failed ninth grade.

"If you look at the attendance rate of kids in our schools, it's 94 to 95 percent attendance," said Sue Vertosick, director of programs for the diocese. "We have 35 percent perfect attendance at some schools. We don't lose a lot of families unless they are moving out or there are custody changes or factors beyond our control."

They have a 96% graduation rate (US average is around 70%) for students who attend their program, and this from poor families who often have an even lower graduation rate then the national average.

You asked about European schools. Now you're talking about Pennsylvania. Why don't you keep the geography straight instead of playing games? And how exactly did what I write constitute an attack? Are you paranoid? And what point are you trying to make or support with that article anyway? "Catholic school classes are small and stay together." Was that it? "She sends her children to St. James so they'll learn Christian values along with the three R's." Was that it? "Parents who receive funding are required to volunteer at the schools." Was that it? "A painting of Jesus portrayed as a black man hangs in the front foyer at St. Benedict the Moor." Was that it? I wonder how that would fly in Texas?

Quote: Original post by tstrimp

Quote: Original post by LessBread
One party dictatorship? With the embrace of corporatism, China may appear to be only nominally communist, but the Chinese state (and thus the Communist party) is heavily involved with every aspect of business there, from ownership to planning and control. Investigate the matter for yourself, you'll see.

China is clearly an authoritatian capitalist country. The number of private businesses continues to grow rapidly in China and economic regulation has shifted much more to the local level. The gap between the rich and the poor in China is greater then our own, and it's still growing.

Quote: China Lifts Obstacles for Private Industry
Zeng said the government would "actively guide and encourage private investment" and would "eliminate all restrictive and discriminatory regulations that are not friendly toward private investment and private economic development in taxes, land use, business start-up and import and export."

Most significantly, the statement dangled the prospect of unprecedented access to China's two stock markets ? in Shanghai and Shenzhen ? for China's private firms.

"Except for the areas that are related to national security and those that must be monopolized by the state, all the rest of the areas should allow private capital to enter," it added. Most economists say everything but the military, telecommunications and energy industries, along with some parts of the transportation sector, will be opened to private competition. State-run monopolies in exports, imports and manufacturing, for example, will be dismantled.

Being authoritarian alone does not make a country communist. If you ignore all of the economic aspects of communism, then sure, you can call China communist. With all the google searching you do, I'm surprised you don't know this. Perhaps you should investigate the matter for yourself, you'll see.

You're beginning to annoy me. The article you site documents promises of change not actual change. "For example, Hu said China's state-owned firms sucked up 70 percent of the new investment last year. And they employ 56 percent of the labor force. But last year they accounted for less than 40 percent of industrial output." That was stated in 2000. Why don't you find out where those figures stand 9 years later? Here are a few links to help get you started.

China Takes the Brakes Off (July 22, 2009) "By all appearances, China has once again deployed its enormous state capacity, including state control of the banking system, to ward off a recession."

The Wrong Way to Invest in China (June 9, 2009) "The Chinese government has certainly reduced its ownership of some SOEs, but given the size of those companies, and the size of the government's remaining ownership, it could be a long time before those SOEs are fully privatized. ... The bottom line is that, despite the loosening of the PRC's grip, SOEs still do not put shareholder interests first. Their motivation is still at least partly political, ..."

Why China's State-owned Companies Are Making a Comeback (April 29, 2009) "Many of China's state-owned enterprises (SOEs) have grown into giants, eclipsing the relatively young, private companies that have contributed heavily to the country's progress."

Chinese business: Time to change the act (Feb 19th 2009) "Even today only the rarest company can claim unfettered independence. According to Yasheng Huang, an economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, explicitly state-controlled firms make up half the economy. That probably understates the true effect, because even private firms understand that their existence depends on their relations with the state."

Reassessing China's State-Owned Enterprises (July 8, 2008) "The government's pervasiveness in society gives China's state-owned enterprises freer rein to confront these issues than their counterparts in more open societies enjoy. The Communist Party controls both labor and management, eliminating the overt tensions that make public sector reform difficult elsewhere."

China’s hybrid economy (October 2008) "Despite the rapid growth of the private capitalist sector and the strengthening of centrifugal market forces, the state still exercises considerable economic power."

Quote: Original post by LessBread
China’s hybrid economy (October 2008) "Despite the rapid growth of the private capitalist sector and the strengthening of centrifugal market forces, the state still exercises considerable economic power."

I.e. something like Lenin's "new economic policy"(NEP) in 1920's ?
Just wait until capitalists will bring enough money,technology and then expropriate all:)

Quote: Original post by LessBread

Clearly, voucher proponents are more interested in destroying public schools than in delivering improved educational services to the nation's children.

With all due respect, this conclusion is completely absurd. Given that the voucher proponents don't typically also push for reduced per-student spending, it's quite clear what their interests are.

You may not agree with their methods or logic, but it's disingenuous to pigeonhole them into a demonizable anti-education opposition.

Quote: Original post by Krokhin

Quote: Original post by LessBread
China’s hybrid economy (October 2008) "Despite the rapid growth of the private capitalist sector and the strengthening of centrifugal market forces, the state still exercises considerable economic power."

I.e. something like Lenin's "new economic policy"(NEP) in 1920's ?
Just wait until capitalists will bring enough money,technology and then expropriate all:)

That article hints at the possibility.

Quote:
Like many other commentators, Hutton shows how, in practice, the state has effectively retained control of former SOEs that have become joint-stock companies. With many apparently privatised companies, "the shareholder and accounting structure is such that at any time the party can regain control if it is necessary".