Exactly @pluralistic. The owners show us everyday how to make capitalism work better for the public. Make them afraid.
https://pca.st/episode/b6424cb9-8223-4cfd-86a0-4caf45ba1da2
I think it's an important question about who "we" is.
I think that answer is the politicians. Tell me if I'm completely off on this, but I think you and I would both agree that the economy with respect to the common Man has been doing terribly probably for the last 15-20 years. We know full well that people who used to be able to raise a family on a single income are now struggling in two household income families, and it's really hard to find a decent job. Sure there's lots of "jobs" -- minimum wage crap that's going to let you live in your parents basement until you're 99, the life is hard and it's been hard for quite a long time for most people.
Now why would the politicians think that the stock market equals the economy? Well, I think it's because of two reasons. First, because it's a lot easier to trick the stock market into going up than it is to build a robust economy. Second, and I think more importantly, voters are only an anciliary part of the process at this point in the election system. The people that politicians are really trying to pander to our donors, and the donors care a whole lot about what the stock market does because that's where they get the money that they give the politicians to get the laws passed that they want.
It's a bipartisan thing by the way, politicians from both parties in the US at least will tell you that most of their job is sitting on phones begging for money so that you can win the next election, and also so that you can placate your friends in the party.
In my view, the only thing that might help turn the state of affairs around is if money stops being equivalent to votes. For the longest time, if you could buy enough advertising it would effectively help you cinch the election, but eventually you won't be able to advertise your way out of the hole that both parties were done for themselves, and they will actually have to figure out what they're going to do for the common Man. It's like "it's great that you're telling me how great I have things, but I don't know that I'm going to have shelter next week or food today, so maybe shut the fuck up"
On the other hand, when that sort of thing happens it doesn't tend to swing elections, it tends to cause massive shakeups in entire civilizations.
I think that answer is the politicians. Tell me if I'm completely off on this, but I think you and I would both agree that the economy with respect to the common Man has been doing terribly probably for the last 15-20 years. We know full well that people who used to be able to raise a family on a single income are now struggling in two household income families, and it's really hard to find a decent job. Sure there's lots of "jobs" -- minimum wage crap that's going to let you live in your parents basement until you're 99, the life is hard and it's been hard for quite a long time for most people.
Now why would the politicians think that the stock market equals the economy? Well, I think it's because of two reasons. First, because it's a lot easier to trick the stock market into going up than it is to build a robust economy. Second, and I think more importantly, voters are only an anciliary part of the process at this point in the election system. The people that politicians are really trying to pander to our donors, and the donors care a whole lot about what the stock market does because that's where they get the money that they give the politicians to get the laws passed that they want.
It's a bipartisan thing by the way, politicians from both parties in the US at least will tell you that most of their job is sitting on phones begging for money so that you can win the next election, and also so that you can placate your friends in the party.
In my view, the only thing that might help turn the state of affairs around is if money stops being equivalent to votes. For the longest time, if you could buy enough advertising it would effectively help you cinch the election, but eventually you won't be able to advertise your way out of the hole that both parties were done for themselves, and they will actually have to figure out what they're going to do for the common Man. It's like "it's great that you're telling me how great I have things, but I don't know that I'm going to have shelter next week or food today, so maybe shut the fuck up"
On the other hand, when that sort of thing happens it doesn't tend to swing elections, it tends to cause massive shakeups in entire civilizations.
the only real fix is a better electorate. more knowledgeable, more critical thinking. beyond education, everybody consuming decentralized media without ads or big money influence is key. better funding of journalism. I think we're figuring that out.
And I think education is only going to work as a decentralized effort. Given the astronomical failure of many public schools in the US and around the world, we just can't rely on them as a path to education as an ideal.
I can't agree. education can become its opposite, indoctrination. I see that as more likely when done by families or corps/orgs. while it's possible under govt too, a democracy should understand the need to teach (and in some sense be forced to compromise towards) critical thinking more than other groups. it can go wrong but the main problem imo is a critical thinking student population will piss off everyone, leading to demands to change it. see US campuses this week.
How are school systems that fail to teach basic literacy to a single student in hundreds of schools supposed to teach critical thinking?
If you're turning out an illiterate electorate, that's what you're getting.
I think you are overestimating the critical thinking of student demonstrators. They are doing what they're told, they are pawns. They don't have values, they have marching orders. As they chant from the river to the sea, do they even know which river and which sea? Many don't.
If you're turning out an illiterate electorate, that's what you're getting.
I think you are overestimating the critical thinking of student demonstrators. They are doing what they're told, they are pawns. They don't have values, they have marching orders. As they chant from the river to the sea, do they even know which river and which sea? Many don't.
- replies
- 1
- announces
- 1
- likes
- 1
most school systems are not failing. those that are also have other social problems. fix those and the schools will get better. privatization in those environments will only save a few, while making it worse for others. while I can agree that public unions can be a problem and demands more community involvement, what really needs adjustment is funding equity. I went to all public schools in a nice suburb. people move for the schools in Illinois. it shouldn't be that way.
I mean, Illinois is a poster child for the failure of public schooling.
Illinois and in particular the Chicago public school system spends more than any other state in the midwest, teachers there have the best salaries and benefits in the region. Amount spent per student has almost doubled since 2008, and yet more students leave unable to read at grade level than able to (less than a quarter being able to read), and when we're talking about minority students, depending on the minority you could be looking at 8 in 10 students being functionally illiterate at graduation, or even as much as 9 in 10.
Now the problem is, meanwhile according to their own internal metrics things have never been better. Every teacher in the Chicago public school system has a 100% approval rating, and schools report that 89% of kids are on track to graduate -- because the managerial elite in charge of schools don't care about the success of individuals, but good looking numbers and what they measure is graduation rates because within their managerial circles that is the current hypothesis. There is effectively no one that you can vote for to change that, because the managerial class comes with the government, sort of like if a feudal Lord were to conquer the nearby kingdom, the people living on the land would stay with the land unless the Lord did something drastic. The world is not feeling that great today since it's not running by anything remotely democratic, of course the results aren't a democratic populace, but one ruled by a managerial elite.
The fact that the West is ruled by managerial elite instead of their parliaments or republics means that it doesn't matter which country you go to, it's basically the same problem. The managerial class sees you as a number, and they think all they need to do to make people equal is to make the numbers go up, so more graduates means more equality (even though graduation doesn't even mean you're literate), and we're seeing the base level of education dropping because lower standards mean higher numbers, meaning more betterer. I went to school in a world class region, and it was a betrayal -- the level was just too low, and even if you got straight As, they weren't teaching basic competency. Get a 95 in English and barely be able to write a letter because they just didn't teach essential communications skills.
So expecting to stack a much more complicated skill like critical thinking on top of their utter failure to teach these basic skills just isn't reasonable. They would end up coming up with some metric to prove how great they were at critical thinking and meanwhile kids would get even worse at it.
All that being said, I'm not even saying that you privatize public schools. When I say you decentralize the electorate's education, I'm saying you go out and make it everyone's civic duty to become educated outside of the core basics presented (poorly) in public schools. And you might think that that's unreasonable, but both you and I had to do it in order to get to the point that we can have this conversation. There was nothing in public school that would have led you or I to have the thoughts that we are expressing to each other right now. We end up having to go out in a decentralized manner and willfully choose to learn about the world, and form opinions, and learn what both good and bad arguments look like.
Illinois and in particular the Chicago public school system spends more than any other state in the midwest, teachers there have the best salaries and benefits in the region. Amount spent per student has almost doubled since 2008, and yet more students leave unable to read at grade level than able to (less than a quarter being able to read), and when we're talking about minority students, depending on the minority you could be looking at 8 in 10 students being functionally illiterate at graduation, or even as much as 9 in 10.
Now the problem is, meanwhile according to their own internal metrics things have never been better. Every teacher in the Chicago public school system has a 100% approval rating, and schools report that 89% of kids are on track to graduate -- because the managerial elite in charge of schools don't care about the success of individuals, but good looking numbers and what they measure is graduation rates because within their managerial circles that is the current hypothesis. There is effectively no one that you can vote for to change that, because the managerial class comes with the government, sort of like if a feudal Lord were to conquer the nearby kingdom, the people living on the land would stay with the land unless the Lord did something drastic. The world is not feeling that great today since it's not running by anything remotely democratic, of course the results aren't a democratic populace, but one ruled by a managerial elite.
The fact that the West is ruled by managerial elite instead of their parliaments or republics means that it doesn't matter which country you go to, it's basically the same problem. The managerial class sees you as a number, and they think all they need to do to make people equal is to make the numbers go up, so more graduates means more equality (even though graduation doesn't even mean you're literate), and we're seeing the base level of education dropping because lower standards mean higher numbers, meaning more betterer. I went to school in a world class region, and it was a betrayal -- the level was just too low, and even if you got straight As, they weren't teaching basic competency. Get a 95 in English and barely be able to write a letter because they just didn't teach essential communications skills.
So expecting to stack a much more complicated skill like critical thinking on top of their utter failure to teach these basic skills just isn't reasonable. They would end up coming up with some metric to prove how great they were at critical thinking and meanwhile kids would get even worse at it.
All that being said, I'm not even saying that you privatize public schools. When I say you decentralize the electorate's education, I'm saying you go out and make it everyone's civic duty to become educated outside of the core basics presented (poorly) in public schools. And you might think that that's unreasonable, but both you and I had to do it in order to get to the point that we can have this conversation. There was nothing in public school that would have led you or I to have the thoughts that we are expressing to each other right now. We end up having to go out in a decentralized manner and willfully choose to learn about the world, and form opinions, and learn what both good and bad arguments look like.