Socialism: Yes or No?

T "real deal" J

Redleslie2, hmmm I'm on your little gay ignore list. Who cares? why say it? Wow I get to join the facists and racists. Cheers? Is this not just about political systems.

sceptre wrote:

If I remember rightly, he said precisely the opposite (but it's probably been a long while since I dusted off Marx (or Smith) so I may remember incorrectly). Now let's examine what that means. He said that socialism was a necessary step on the path to communism, in other words that you can't have communism without going through a socialist phase

Well thank you very much. That makes things easier for me. If socialism is a necessary step towards communism (Soviets, Chinese) then I'd rather not not live through your miserable "Socialist Phase" of unreasonable 10 year plans and such. And don't give out to me about picking the worst example. Give me a good example of where "socialism/communism" works.

Does it not occur to you people that you're in the minority. Maybe not in this poll where you all whine on together about how great and fair socialism is. You're all the same > moaning on and on about the current system with no credible feasable solutions of your own. Ireland's economy is grand at the moment (thanks to EU subsidies and American Multinational investment < has it ever occured to you why Bertie's trying to keep on the American's good side?) and I've no problem with it. Unemployment is only at 4% so why say yes to socialism when for most people here it's Hunky Dory. Plenty of opportunities.

sceptre

T real deal J wrote:

Well thank you very much. That makes things easier for me. If socialism is a necessary step towards communism (Soviets, Chinese) then I'd rather not not live through your miserable "Socialist Phase" of unreasonable 10 year plans and such. And don't give out to me about picking the worst example. Give me a good example of where "socialism/communism" works.

Pointless calling it "my" miserable anything - the only opinion I've offered is that your example was non-applicable and rather weak. Which it was, for the reasons I stated, which you haven't actually contradicted in any meaningful way (see below). You unfortunately got it the wrong way around and you're doing the rat in a corner thing when you could just have said "oops, typo" (or obviously, better still, figure you got it wrong and, recognising the difference between socialism (in varying degrees) and communism, go on to discuss that rationally).

And again you're missing out on the necessary step versus necessary conclusion thing. You could do worse than to read it again. I didn't bring it up - you did. To reiterate: Marx said (obviously different from "I said") that you couldn't have communism without a socialist phase. Obviously you can have socialism without following it with the communist phase. One may not want both (or either) but one can.

Does it not occur to you people that you're in the minority. Maybe not in this poll where you all whine on together about how great and fair socialism is. You're all the same > moaning on and on about the current system with no credible feasable solutions of your own. Ireland's economy is grand at the moment (thanks to EU subsidies and American Multinational investment < has it ever occured to you why Bertie's trying to keep on the American's good side?) and I've no problem with it. Unemployment is only at 4% so why say yes to socialism when for most people here it's Hunky Dory. Plenty of opportunities.

Nice angry tirade. Nothing to do with anything I said so I'll let someone else choose whether to bother.

ecksor

If socialism is a necessary step towards communism (Soviets, Chinese) then I'd rather not not live through your miserable "Socialist Phase" of unreasonable 10 year plans and such.

I don't know if it's his miserable socialist phase as such, it's possible to point out your mistakes without supporting the concepts he's explaining to you. You appear to have made the fallacious assumption that socialism is bound to lead to communism anyway despite the fact that the person whose point you're addressing arguing that one does not necessarily lead to the other.

That makes things easier for me.

I know its easier not to address the points put to you, but it'd be nice if you tried.

Zombrex

T real deal J wrote:

This is true here in Ireland. However did you ever think of why private health care will always be far superior than public health care? I'll explain>

But its not ... look at America. Of course if you are Bill Gates you are going to have good health care, but not if you are a min-wage worker. Then, under a private health care plan you better make sure you don't get ill.

And I would just point out that public health care is in Cuba is vastly superior to private health care in Ireland.

T real deal J wrote:

Let me replace "hard work" with ingenuity, enterprise, efficiency and incentive. Private health care has these traits as profit is to be made. Public services are complacent and workers get lazy as their jobs are more secure. Our buses and trains > always late. "Hard work" was a sloppy term.

None of which are present in the capitalist system when applied to the real world The mine owner probably inheritted the mine from his rich dad, and then probably downsized the entire place to make even more money to give to his childern.

Money makes more money. You have to start of with money.

T real deal J wrote:

The mine worker's hard work is put to waste as he does not have the entrepeneur's vision. Capitalism accomodates human nature whilst socialism tries to take care of everybody. Stifling our instincts is counterproductive and like it or not only the strong survive.

No the mine workers hard work is put to waste because he does not have a rich father. Socialism says that we, society, will protect you even if you are less fortunate that us, even if luck has dealt you a bad hand. Capitalism says my father bought my education so now I am going to blow expensive cigar smoke in your face while you die from cancer because your parents could effort to get you health care.

TJ your eutopian view of capitalism only works if everyone starts off rich. What exactly do you plan to do with the people who are born into families who do not have the money to buy their kids top level health-care and education.

BTW the "instincts" argument is cr&p. It is not in our instinct to fly, buy CD players, eat rice, watch Countdown. 2 million years of evolution and we have moved far far beyond being slaves to our baser intincts.

ionapaul

Wicknight wrote:

And I would just point out that public health care is in Cuba is vastly superior to private health care in Ireland.

And yet thousands of poor Cubans (those supposedly who should benefit most from Castro's socialist policies) are willing to risk their lives each and every year in order to become illegal immigrants in the US and a chance of living the American dream...guess people are voting with their feet on that one. In Cuba's case, the few benefits the country has gained from socialism seem to have been heavily outweighed by the negatives. Perhaps we should forget this example. Or listen to the Castro fans proclaim that without the embargo, it truly would be a 'socialist paradise'!!!!*

*did we ever find out if this is from the Simpsons or elsewhere?

Zombrex

ionapaul wrote:

And yet thousands of poor Cubans (those supposedly who should benefit most from Castro's socialist policies) are willing to risk their lives each and every year in order to become illegal immigrants in the US and a chance of living the American dream[/SIZE]

That is the problem with the American dream it is just that, a dream ... thousands emigrate to America and a small handfull actually make it. The rest live in 3rd world standard poverty for the rest of their lives, with little or no education or health care. But they still believe that they are could be the ones to "make it". It is a lottery which the vast majority lose.

Communism will never work because people always believe that they can make it and that the government shouldn't stop them from trying. And the government really [EDIT] shouldn't [/EDIT - I am not a communist!] try and stop them. If the majority want a non-communist system you must convince them otherwise, not force it on them. That is why I believe in Social Democracy, people can try and be as successful as they like but they should still pay taxes to help the ones who are not as lucky.

Cuba still has a better health care system than America but you can't become a millionaire in Cuba where as in American it is only slightly very very very very unlikely that you will.

AngelofFire

And yet thousands of poor Cubans (those supposedly who should benefit most from Castro's socialist policies)

They were no better off under Batista either, Castro is no saint but cuban people have been better off since the batista regieme was overthrown.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

mycroft

And yet thousands of poor Cubans (those supposedly who should benefit most from Castro's socialist policies) are willing to risk their lives each and every year in order to become illegal immigrants in the US and a chance of living the American dream...guess people are voting with their feet on that one. In Cuba's case, the few benefits the country has gained from socialism seem to have been heavily outweighed by the negatives. Perhaps we should forget this example. Or listen to the Castro fans proclaim that without the embargo, it truly would be a 'socialist paradise'!!!!*

And the thousands of mexicans fleeing across the border to the US is what? A ringing endorsement of free market economics? Mexico is a Capitalist society.

Can all the socialist bashers please stop using the USSR and Cuba as an example of socialist state. They are dictatorships that have enacted some socialist policies.

And also on an aside cuba's failure as an economy has more to do with the US embargo on the country. When the largest one of the largest economies in the world which happens to be in your backyard decides to enact a 30 year embargo on you, any country is doomed to failure. The fact that the USA (home of the free TM) is now dicatating and limiting the amount of cash exiles can send home is another nail in the coffin of the cuban economy. The fact that cuba has developed one of the worlds finest health care systems (find a cuban who needs glasses) in the face of this, means that it's something worth exploring to some degree. For christs sake they're exporting doctors to Venzualia. Who exports doctors?!? :eek:

T "real deal" J

sceptre wrote:

If I remember rightly, he said precisely the opposite (but it's probably been a long while since I dusted off Marx (or Smith) so I may remember incorrectly). Now let's examine what that means. He said that socialism was a necessary step on the path to communism, in other words that you can't have communism without going through a socialist phase

You can't have communism without going through a socialist phase. Right so this is actually untrue. It's getting pretty vauge.

What is your definition of socialism then? A clinical answer please. I'm pretty sure it means everything is state owned, no private property etc. Absolutely nobody here can convince me why it could work. How can you convince the entire population? All I'm getting back is how "weak" my arguments are and how wrong capitalism is. Doesn't consumer power over the market not seem better than central planning? (For choice of goods anyway). If socialism is the best system then why aren't a lot more societies incorporating it? Maybe you're right and we're all wrong. Maybe not!

ionapaul

mycroft wrote:

And the thousands of mexicans fleeing across the border to the US is what? A ringing endorsement of free market economics? Mexico is a Capitalist society.

Mexico is a capitalist and democratic country (though the latter is debatable) NOW - but wasn't for the decades under the PRI and its predecessors. Their corruption and short-sighted policies (some of which were socialist, more so than capitalist in any case, land re-distribution and the like) damaged the country to the extent that thousands fled (and still do) to America to build better lives for themselves and their families. The fact that Mexico is now capitalist is not the reason for the immigrants to Texas, California or elsewhere, if anything it is their political history and corrupt and oppressive goverments pre-2000.

On a side note about the American dream and how it relates to Mexican immigrants, one of my closest friends (yep, you've heard these types of stories before ), a person I met while attending Berkeley, is the daughter of two Mexican immigrants. Her mother became a naturalised citizen in the 1960s, while her father entered the country illegally a number of times (once hidden in the boot of a car!) and was deported a total of three times. He never received much education. Now a citizen, he worked his way up from unskilled labourer to site foreman, and though not a millionare, has a very large and nice house in a town in the Central Valley in California, is well-off by any standards. Furthermore, both of his children have college educations, his daughter has a Masters in Business Administration from Berkeley and owns two properties herself in her late twenties. And her parents don't even speak fluent English (despite decades in America).

This is one of the reasons why, despite everything else, the US remains the destination of choice for almost all immigrants - they go elsewhere by necessity or because of opportunity, but most would go to the US if they could. It may be extremely hard to attain for most, but the American dream is a reality.

There are problems inherent in the capitalist system, but not as many (IMO) as in a purely socialist system - as a result of my life experiences and deep-held opinions, I would always favour a capitalist system with some select socialist elements, than a socialist system with a few capitalist elements. I believe people both need and want a system where entrepreneurs are rewarded and people can become wealthy through hard work and risk taking - in this light inequality in terms of material wealth is to be expected and IMO desirable.

sceptre

T real deal J wrote:

You can't have communism without going through a socialist phase.

That's just what Marx said, nothing more. You get to make up your own mind on whether he was correct or not but you've got to get the statement the correct way round before judging its accuracy

It's getting pretty vauge.

I doubt it - the idea is pretty easy to understand, then you get to decide whether it's correct or not. You have to understand the idea first though.

All I'm getting back is how "weak" my arguments are and how wrong capitalism is.

Ah now I never said the latter - I only said the former. Criticising something by using an example that's not generally regarded as part of that something is hardly a convincing argument.

What is your definition of socialism then? A clinical answer please

There isn't a clinical answer (assuming that by "clinical answer" you mean bite-sized and easy to digest). "Socialism" (like "capitalism") is a term used for a wide variety of ideologies and social & economic theories. In the case of "socialism", it's a term used for a wide variety of social and economic measures that have the welfare of the people as a whole at their core (sort of like utilitarianism really). That's about as close to a bite-sized but accurate definition as you'll get.

You have weak socialism (and here I'm using the term "weak" in a near-mathematical context as opposed to necessarily being critical as I am with a weak argument) and strong socialism. The former tends towards a free market, the latter tends to a non-free market (and here I'm using the term "market" purely as a means of exchange of resources (including both natural recourses and labour) and capital). In other words, from the point of view of people welfare, the former tends towards a weak (same context as before) welfare state with a relatively low level of social welfare and consumer protection (but where these items are present) and the latter tends towards a welfare state with strong central control. The former is effectively a weak social democracy and the latter is effectively communism. On the way you pass through various levels of socialism and the libertarian socialists (do they still like to be called anarchists?) are spread evenly in there.

Most self-described socialists would say that the point of socialism is that a State should be run, in general, for the main benefit of the vast majority of people rather than for the main benefit of a small number of people. Lots of self-described capitalists would say the exact same thing. Hence, in a weak (same context) sense, that's pretty much every democratic government in existence with any protection for anyone: workers, children, minorities, men, women, pensioners and anyone else you can think of. That's why we've differing levels of tax for differing salaries rather than the king's men turning up with a crossbow and demanding a shiny gold piece from every citizen.

Some States go a little further: they may have extra-high rates of tax for high earners, they may have extra protection including salaried maternity leave or they may make sure pensioners get enough from a State pension to buy a paper, pay rent and eat as well. They may have a system where low earners don't have to pay for medical expenses. OAPs may get free travel on State-owned transport.

Others go further again: maybe no-one has to pay to see a doctor, there may be a single charge for prescriptions and public transport is subsidised. Or maybe there's extra fuel tax thrown on to private transport so that people are encouraged to take public transport.

These are obviously all forms of weak socialism (though some will disagree and say that it's only in economic terms we should consider whether something is actually socialist or not. Plenty of people in this group like to draw a line between "social democracy" and "socialism" and good luck to them with that - a spoon is effectively a small spade if you use it for digging the garden).

There are quite a few "mixed market" philosophies - given that most people here would adopt elements of social reform and capitalism, most people here would probably follow one of these philosophies - look up dirigism, mercantilism, distributionism, new liberalism (or social democracy, most people here would fall into this one at one end of it or the other), and on the other side, libertarianism (not the libertarian socialists, they're another band), conservatism and objectivism. There are very few people here who would actually tout extreme capitalism or pure communism so it's worth taking the time to understand the philosophies that people may find themselves with.

Meanwhile Sweden obviously has a stronger form of institutional socialism than, say, us. One could say that a measure of how socialist a State is is dependent on the level of central planning but that doesn't account for the libertarian socialists (and they've all got different ideas of the degree that central planning should be limited) so it's only so-so as a useful guideline.

And them you've got communism. Obviously I've skipped quite a number of steps on my way to communism but I haven't got all day to be posting here. Communism's older than Marx. Plato was rather a fan when he recommended the ownership in trust of all property by an intellectual ruling class. Thomas More's Utopia is obviously something of a communist manifesto of sorts, though given that "utopia" means "nowhere" he was making at least two other points with the title. Robert Owen's New Harmony community in Indiana was very much based on the idea of communal property (and not just sharing a lawn-mower with a neighbour or neighborhood). And a kibbutz is effectively a communist community (and in a very small community it can work quite well - that's the way a family effectively works).

However, given that you're touting Cuba, I assume you're thinking of Marxism (even though Cuba's economy is anything but Marxist, particularly since 1991, even ignoring the two distinct markets there (one in pesos, the other more sexy one in dollars)) -the wacky notion that just as feudalism was replaced by capitalism, workers would throw off their fetters and control the means of production themselves and wind their way to paradise. The key for Marx was that factory owners (he didn't use the term "capitalist" - it was coined by Werner Sombart in 1906 ("Modern Capitalism", worth a read)) were buying labour from the workers and selling the productive result of labour at a profit - and he thought this was wrong. More to the point he thought it would be the straw that broke the collective's back, leading to a collective. This is what you're thinking of when you're talking about "socialism" and think of it as a controlled State with no property ownership. Everyone else calls that communism, get with the programme.

Communism's full of holes. Marx's theory of thesis, antithesis and synthesis can be knocked very quickly by remembering that if Marxist theory is grounded on the idea that any thesis (the ruling group) is automatically balanced by an antithesis (the downtrodden) (this is essentially the basis of the entire theory), then any synthesis created as a result of revolution effectively becomes a thesis itself and creates a new antithesis (circle's complete and it keeps continuing until/unless food, goods and services are so cheap and plentiful that anyone can have anything at an effective cost of zero (you Star Trek types are probably a bit ahead of the economists on this one), though obviously this comes with its own problems)

What you're arguing against (in classic straw-man fallacy-style) is an extreme subset of socialism that hardly anyone out there still believes in.

The fact is that regardless of the emphasis anyone would like to place on either mass welfare or mass wealth (or limited welfare and limited wealth), anyone (and this is a general comment rather than being targetted at anyone) who can come out with a simple statement like either "capitalism is wrong" or "socialism is wrong" probably doesn't understand all that much about either people or economics. Arguing by extremes is a waste of time so how's about we don't do that?

Please take careful note that I haven't touted any of the above as ideal (or desirable). You asked the question, I took the time out to answer it (and I'm sorry I've not more time to do it more concisely). I can do the same with capitalism but someone else might like to take that one on. Some people will disagree with what I've said but regardless of their economic philosophy they'll agree that the summary analysis is more right than wrong.

AngelofFire

T real deal J wrote:

You can't have communism without going through a socialist phase. Right so this is actually untrue. It's getting pretty vauge.

What is your definition of socialism then? A clinical answer please. I'm pretty sure it

Refering to what GOM posted here`s an eye opener for ya real deal.

Making sure everyone in society is given equal opportunities and looked after when needed. Making sure the Market is constranded for the good of society in certain areas. Treating the root of a problem and not the result. If these actions are unnatural and against human natural then I embrace them. If natural is the law of the jungle. Survival of the fittest then America deserves to walk all over teh world and do as it pleases.

and you believe that to be wrong T "real deal" J

shotamoose

Sand wrote:

I dont know the last time the government demanded I give them a chicken.

Well, whatever. The point is that, contrary to what you thought, the 'socialist policies' of tax and redistribution have been around since the year dot.

European governments are meant to be socialist but the EU common market is breaking down national monopolies

See, you're just getting tied up in knots with this relentless over-simplification. First, 'Europe' is 'socialist', then - within a sentence - it has a common market. Which is it? Could it be that - as I've been arguing - Europe exhibits a mix of both socialist and capitalist policies, just like every single other rich country?

The reality that the ties that have traditionally bound societies together are weakening.

You keep trotting out this line, but it's just not convincing. The policies that have delivered the highest living standards in world history are going to be abandoned ... why? Because their 'traditional cultural bounds' are weakening? Sounds like simple wishful thinking.

The reality that socialist policies like the CAP are doing immense harm to developing economies around the world.

CAP is a system that takes money from the poor and gives it to the rich. If you believe that any distributional policy, no matter how regressive, counts as socialism, then you need to go away and re-think your terms.

Well find out in the next few decades just how much theyre willing to pay for them, wont we? I mean whats the socialists secret plan for the aging "bump" thats due in the next while?

You might revise your apocalyptic vision if you thought about the simple economics of the issue. The fact is that productivity in Europe continues to grow at about one or two percent a year (and that's with their shorter working week as well) so there's no reason why the future elderly can't live out their years in reasonable comfort. There are of course isolated examples of over-generous pension schemes which will have to find some accommodation with reality, but if you believe that the whole system is going to come crashing down because the French take long holidays you're quite wrong.

I dont know if that graph proves that - it doesnt look at anything beyond economic background. So its saying its a factor but we get no idea of the weighting. Maybe its relatively minor?

Well, it quite compares the diverging paths of people from different classes who start out with similar levels of cognitive development at 22 months, which as good a proxy for 'genetic inheritence' as is available. The study establishes that genetic differences tend to be overcome by economic background - kids from rich backgrounds who don't perform well early on tend to catch up, kids from poor backgrounds don't. If you care about equality of opportunity, you'll want something done about that.

Care to provide a link to the actual source study

The article is "Inequality in the Early Cognitive Development of British Children in the 1970 Cohort", by Leon Feinstein, in the spring 2003 issue of the journal Economica. You probably won't be able to access it if you don't have an academic password.

As I said Ill bet on a smart poor person to pass an exam ahead of dumb rich person any day of the week.

Then you missed the point of the article, which was that a 'dumb' rich kids are much more likely to become 'smart' than dumb poor kids. There's also the point that dumb rich people have less need of exams than smart poor people.

Oh but a guy with an iq of 12 and a guy with an iq of 112 have equal opportunities?

You're confusing equality of opportunity with equality of outcome. In an ideally fair system, everyone - rich, poor, dumb, smart - would have equality of opportunity but outcomes would be decided on the basis of smarts and not riches.

Ill break it down for ya - Youre arguing for a compassionate form of capitalism. Lets agree the market is the way the economy should be run as a general rule, but lets borrow policy from the USSR for certain "exceptions" like education and health.

I'll have to stop you there. I know you'd like people to think that public schools are the first step on the road to the Gulag - because you just hate the idea so much that rationality seems to have gone out the window - but that doesn't make it any less fanciful.

Tell me honestly - do you believe that the concept of state-led education was actually invented in the USSR?

If you want to make health and education more accessible you could do it through the markets. Whats the fascination with a failed system?

Hmm, looks like you actually do.

Give us a break, Sand. If you're not going to absorb even the simplest counter-arguments and insist on simply asserting - without a shred of evidence - things like "If you want to make health and education more accessible you could do it through the markets" then there's not much point you posting here. 'Arguing for the sake of arguing', I think you called it.

T "real deal" J

That's fair enough for me. Thorough if anything. Good answer. I'm still going to stand by the free market though. I think we in Ireland have it just about right, except for the over generous welfare system and abysmally run public services. It seems to be at the public end of things where this country is an absolute mess, even with budget surpluses and increased tax revenue. That's why I say no to socialism, where ALL our services would be public.

bonkey

T real deal J wrote:

That's why I say no to socialism, where ALL our services would be public.

Yes, but I'm willing that you'd also - by that standard - say no to capitalism if you define it to an equally extreme level.

There seems to be a popular opinion which says that if you support a more socialist system than we have that you therefore want to go the whole hog to "pure" socialism...probably on the way to communism.

If one wants to decrease the wealth-divide, one gets seen as wanting "pure" socialism...or at least thats what many who oppose whatever suggestion would far too often have you believe.

As shotamoose pointed out, Europe is not "Socialist", it is "more Socialist then the US" (it being the most common comparison). However, the US is not entirely non-socialist. It has social policies too....just less of them.

The real question is where the balance is...or where one thinks the balance should be.

Put quite simply, anyone who believes any absolute system is the right one to have in the absence of a Utopian society is kidding themselves. The best we seem to have come up with to date is a democratic/capitalistic/socialistic mix.

The issue then becomes how you define what is desirable, and how you optimise your mix to maximise your "desirable return".

A classic example is the whole "trickle down economics" theory. Yes, it does make everyone better off, but it massively disproportionatly favours those who are already well off, and increases the social divide (as commented on by Stiglitz in The Roaring Nineties). This, in turn, breeds more social dissatisfaction, which is counter-productive. It should also be pointed out that in the "bust" part of the boom/bust cycle, the social divide is further widened, as it is the poor who suffer most.

There are other theories which tend to perform slightly less well overall, with smaller booms and consequently smaller (and shorter) busts, but which are more balanced in who they benefit, and to what extent.

Suggest one of these policies, though, and all of a sudden you're a socialist who really is a commie in disguise, who wants to tear down the rich and level the playing field entirely....apparently.

jc

omnicorp

Well, you only have to look at the homeless person on the street,
The person dying in an underfunded, understaffed and overcrowded hospital,
Global Warming,
High Crime and,
Then, the Rich in their mansions, with more money and possessions than they'll ever need.
Why do we cheer these usurpers of society?
These Footballers, Actors and Musicians,
When there are Underpayed Doctors, teachers and Nurses.
Do you know their names?
Do you congratulate them for a job well done?
Do you thank them for protecting you?
No, You complain and attack the Gardai, when You should be stopping crime.
You attack the politicians, when you should be attack the people who run them... YOU!

Equality, not Majority Rules

lucernarian

originally posted by omnicorp
Why do we cheer these usurpers of society?
These Footballers, Actors and Musicians,
When there are Underpayed Doctors, teachers and Nurses.
Do you know their names?
Do you congratulate them for a job well done?
Do you thank them for protecting you?
No, You complain and attack the Gardai, when You should be stopping crime.
You attack the politicians, when you should be attack the people who run them... YOU!



Equality, not Majority Rules

Very well said omnicorp. Summed up nicely.

Oh, it's my 100th post

Sand

Well, whatever. The point is that, contrary to what you thought, the 'socialist policies' of tax and redistribution have been around since the year dot.

Not in any recognisable formthough, which is what I said. And I wouldnt regard religious charitable works as recognisably socialist redistribution. Socialists imply the poor have a right to this redistribution, whereaas religious good works are done to better the givers chance of getting into heaven. Bush feels government programs should be sacrificed in favour of religious charity work....you dont see there being a difference?

See, you're just getting tied up in knots with this relentless over-simplification. First, 'Europe' is 'socialist', then - within a sentence - it has a common market. Which is it? Could it be that - as I've been arguing - Europe exhibits a mix of both socialist and capitalist policies, just like every single other rich country?

Do the two levels of European government have to be explained to you? Was Charlie McCreevy talking to himself when the EU criticised his budgets? European national governments are by an large socialist, with a growing element of national socialism. The EU common market adminisitered by the EU administration is the most liberal force in Europe and its helping to stop European national governments interfering with the free market.

I cant believe you dont know this.

You keep trotting out this line, but it's just not convincing. The policies that have delivered the highest living standards in world history are going to be abandoned ... why? Because their 'traditional cultural bounds' are weakening? Sounds like simple wishful thinking.

Oh, and how else do you explain the growing European vote for nationalist parties and the commonly held views that illegal immigrants are exploiting the generosity of the European welfare states?

CAP is a system that takes money from the poor and gives it to the rich. If you believe that any distributional policy, no matter how regressive, counts as socialism, then you need to go away and re-think your terms.

Oh I agree its a lousy policy but its typical socialist driven redistribution - parachuting money into a sector for the perceived greater good of society as a whole. Typical socialist inspired planned economy. Remove CAP and most European small farmers will go to the wall - hence the socialist protection of them.

You might revise your apocalyptic vision if you thought about the simple economics of the issue. The fact is that productivity in Europe continues to grow at about one or two percent a year (and that's with their shorter working week as well) so there's no reason why the future elderly can't live out their years in reasonable comfort. There are of course isolated examples of over-generous pension schemes which will have to find some accommodation with reality, but if you believe that the whole system is going to come crashing down because the French take long holidays you're quite wrong.

So in short, you agree that the socialists will have to cut out the more socialist policies - hence a further retreat from the ideal.

Well, it quite compares the diverging paths of people from different classes who start out with similar levels of cognitive development at 22 months, which as good a proxy for 'genetic inheritence' as is available. The study establishes that genetic differences tend to be overcome by economic background - kids from rich backgrounds who don't perform well early on tend to catch up, kids from poor backgrounds don't. If you care about equality of opportunity, you'll want something done about that.

It averages them out I would have thought, to isolate the two variables the study was interested in? It doesnt state to my mind that parents wealth is *the* decisive factor in determining a childs opportunities.

And while I do care about equal opportunity I accept that there are going to be different variables having an effect on peoples opportunities. Wealth is only one of them, and I do not feel it is the decisive factor. So long as every individual does not face any artificial boundaries then Im satisfied. Sure a poor person may have it harder than a rich person, but many of the people in college are not naturally "gifted". They have to put in many more hours of study to grasp concepts that others pick up much more easily.

The article is "Inequality in the Early Cognitive Development of British Children in the 1970 Cohort", by Leon Feinstein, in the spring 2003 issue of the journal Economica. You probably won't be able to access it if you don't have an academic password.

Thats me snookered then.

You're confusing equality of opportunity with equality of outcome. In an ideally fair system, everyone - rich, poor, dumb, smart - would have equality of opportunity but outcomes would be decided on the basis of smarts and not riches.

I dont think so - IQ or learning difficulties are not so much an outcome, as a real detriment to a persons opportunities. My mother works with special needs children and she has to fight to stop them being consigned to a dead end class where they can be forgotten about by the education system. Their difficulties are as least as much a factor in equality of opportunity as you claim wealth is. If anything, youre confusing outcome with opportunity with the "wealth means you end up smarter" view. Thats based on outcomes afterall, not an examination of opportunities.

I'll have to stop you there. I know you'd like people to think that public schools are the first step on the road to the Gulag - because you just hate the idea so much that rationality seems to have gone out the window - but that doesn't make it any less fanciful.

Did I say that? To be honest, I was drawing more on the association between the USSR and failed government planned economies and societies which handily demonstrated the unsustainability of socialism. If you want to draw associations between socialist planned economies and loss of personal freedoms, well, I wont stop you.

Give us a break, Sand. If you're not going to absorb even the simplest counter-arguments and insist on simply asserting - without a shred of evidence - things like "If you want to make health and education more accessible you could do it through the markets" then there's not much point you posting here. 'Arguing for the sake of arguing', I think you called it.

This from the guy who apparently believes that the EU economic policy and German policy are one and the same ( I mean, we disagree on this whole individual vs state thing, but I gave you a lot more credit than that ). For quote you mention, that with an eye to a previous poster who explained the British system of bank loans to students which they didnt pay off until they were employed. Thats one way to do it. The individual takes the risk, and is far more motivated to do well because theyll need to pay off that bill. Or you could cut tax on say private education or health facilities, ban monopolisitic practises like school uniforms which cost parents huge sums because the supplier knows they can charge it , or work to make the medical insurance market more competitive ( Maybe entertain the idea of a legal review and limitations/guidelines on compensation payouts? ) - I mean even the most committed socialist will opt for private health care over public health care any day of the week if they have a choice. Im not a health or education policy expert, but I dont accept that the socialist way of achieving an open education or health system is the best or even the *only* way of achieving those systems.

bonkey

Sand wrote:

Oh I agree its a lousy policy but its typical socialist driven redistribution - parachuting money into a sector for the perceived greater good of society as a whole.

Err...no its not. Its a system of parachuting money into a local sector for the greater good of the local populace, raather than for the good of society as a whole.

If you limit society to mean "European society", then it may be seen as socialist in terms of looking after its own....but then you might as well say that any tax designed to predominantly benefit the rich is socialist when you look as the rich as a seperate society and face the fact that the people making the laws are predominantly in that group (or more correctly, almost exclusively not in the "poor" group).

It doesnt state to my mind that parents wealth is *the* decisive factor in determining a childs opportunities.

No, just that economic background is *a* decisive factor....just not necessarily the only one.

And while I do care about equal opportunity I accept that there are going to be different variables having an effect on peoples opportunities.

But your argument seems to be that because its a coimplex situation, trying to adjust any of the variables is the wrong thing to do. Or is it just that you don't want your wealth affected, which might in turn effect the advantages that you enjoy from it?

Wealth is only one of them, and I do not feel it is the decisive factor.

Well you;ve really knocked that one out of the ballpark. "That study? Nah...don't think its right". Wow. Convinced me.

So long as every individual does not face any artificial boundaries then Im satisfied.

And yet when presented with an argument from a report which says that the impact of economic bakground does create boundaries, your response is effectively "I don't believe that it is".

Sure a poor person may have it harder than a rich person,

And thats not an artificial boundary?

but many of the people in college are not naturally "gifted".

And many of the people who are naturally "gifted" aren't in college because they can't afford to pay for it.....but thats still not an artificial boundary?

I dont think so - IQ or learning difficulties are not so much an outcome, as a real detriment to a persons opportunities.

And yet you just dismiss out of hand a study which shows that mental development vs physical development (which is the basis of IQ) is significantly effected by economic background, whilst saying that you believe in equality of opportunity!

Their difficulties are as least as much a factor in equality of opportunity as you claim wealth is.

And their difficulties are in turn - according to the study you're dismissing - likely to be significantly affected by economic background.

This from the guy who apparently believes that the EU economic policy and German policy are one and the same ( I mean, we disagree on this whole individual vs state thing, but I gave you a lot more credit than that ).

Well gee Sand, but I'd have given you more credit thatn to believe that a socialist policy meant "socialist to us, but screw the rest of them in as capitalist a way as possible", but thats how you've represented the CAP.

jc

Sand

No, just that economic background is *a* decisive factor....just not necessarily the only one.

Well you;ve really knocked that one out of the ballpark. "That study? Nah...don't think its right". Wow. Convinced me.

Ill take these together, as theyre symptoms of the "argue for the sake of arguing" syndrome. I claim wealth is only one of many factors that determine a childs opportunities, that other factors are just as if not more decisive. Shot produces a graph that plots the outcomes of "rich" and "poor" children and claims this is proof that wealth is the decisive factor. I counter that it only shows that wealth is *a* factor, and doesnt indicate whether it is a major or minor factor. I mean, plot that as girls vs boys and youll see girls do better in exam results. Is gender then the decisive factor in opportunities?

Bonkey now comes in and re-states my position, that wealth is a factor, but not the only one. In the same post he then dismisses my criticism of the study, so what is Bonkeys position? Is it that wealth is *a* factor, but not the only one? Is it that wealth is *the * factor which is what the graph was brought in to suggest? Or is Bonkeys position whatever disagrees with Sand?

Answers on a postcard to the usual address.

But your argument seems to be that because its a coimplex situation, trying to adjust any of the variables is the wrong thing to do. Or is it just that you don't want your wealth affected, which might in turn effect the advantages that you enjoy from it?

My argument is that so long as equal opportunities ( even imperfectly ) exist then there is no compelling argument for redistribution, and the captialist/free market system remains quite sustainable in the long run. Only in cases where its perceived that people are prevented from bettering themselves by artifical barriers that revolution becomes likely.

Well gee Sand, but I'd have given you more credit thatn to believe that a socialist policy meant "socialist to us, but screw the rest of them in as capitalist a way as possible", but thats how you've represented the CAP.

Thats exactly what it means though bonkey. Socialism defines a society, an us where we all have certain rights to certain standrards of living and opportunities and a duty upon the most productive people in that society to provide for the rest. Looking at Ireland , most wealth redistribution from Irish taxes are spent improving the conditions of the poorest in Ireland. Relatively little is spent improving the condition of the actual poorest. the poor otuside of Ireland.

People in Tallagaht are relatively poor compared to the average Irish person but they live like Princes compared to the real, absolute, hopeless poor. Theyre positively upper class toffs in comparison. So why isnt socialist redistribution about taking money from wealthy Ireland and spending all of it on improving the conditions of the *real* poor? If there is a compelling argument for impriving the conditions of the poor in Tallaght, then it is dwarfed in comparison by the moral argument for spending every penny on the poor in Darfur instead. I mean, theyre just as human as the poor in Tallaght, theyre far worse off - free education? pfft, those people want drinkable water, they want the right to life, basic food and medicine to prevent deaths from easily cured ailments - so whats the reason for spending it on Tallaght first?

Because Tallaght is Irish, the people in Darfur arent, and a socialist policy meant "socialist to us, but screw the rest of them in as capitalist a way as possible",

bonkey

Sand wrote:

Shot produces a graph that plots the outcomes of "rich" and "poor" children and claims this is proof that wealth is the decisive factor.

Shot produces a graph, and upon request, the information about where to find the published study which it is taken from.

I counter that it only shows that wealth is *a* factor, and doesnt indicate whether it is a major or minor factor.

IT shows - as shot pointed out - that "genetic inequalities do not seem to be as important as wealth".

I'd say thats a pretty good indicator of how significant a factor it is...that your economic background appears to be more of a determinator of how "smart" you are then your inherent genetic capacity.

I mean, plot that as girls vs boys and youll see girls do better in exam results. Is gender then the decisive factor in opportunities?

When a study shows that economic background is more of a determinant then genetic factors, I'd have to say that no - your gender (being a genetic factor) cannot be the decisive factor.....unless I had some reason to believe the study was flawed, or had access to counter information. You don't seem to have offered either...just a expressed belief that it doesn't say or mean what the person who wrote it concluded it said (or perhaps you're suggesting that shot is the one misrepresenting the findings, and that the study he gave you

Bonkey now comes in and re-states my position, that wealth is a factor, but not the only one.

No. Bonkey came in and said that while it may be true that it is not necessarily the significant factor, it is one of the significant factors. You simply cast doubt that it was the (your empasis) significant factor...saying nothing about whether it was significant at all, or just a factor which isn't really significant at all.

If you see that as a re-stating of your position, then I'll accept that you meant to say what I said, as opposed to what you wrote.

In the same post he then dismisses my criticism of the study,

I'm guessing you haven't read it, for a start. If thats wrong, I apologise.

Regardless, you haven't offered a reason why its wrong from what I can see, other than that you disagree with the conclusions someone who is an expert in the field the study is written in. You haven't shown any counter-study which explains why this expert is wrong, nor have you offered anything other than a stance that - basically - you don't accept its findings.

So yes, I dismiss your criticism of the study.

so what is Bonkeys position?
...
Or is Bonkeys position whatever disagrees with Sand?

Answers on a postcard to the usual address.

If I thought that was a question, rather than an attempt to mock or belittle me, I'd be inclined to answer you.

My argument is that so long as equal opportunities ( even imperfectly ) exist then there is no compelling argument for redistribution,

How can something be imperfectly equal? Isn't that the same as saying its not equal?

jc

omnicorp

Notice that the people who run Capitalist states are rich, powerful and famous.
They usualy come from well-off backgrounds and live in big houses in the suberbs and country.

They hardly know hardship, poverty and inequality now do they?

shotamoose

Sand wrote:

The EU common market adminisitered by the EU administration is the most liberal force in Europe and its helping to stop European national governments interfering with the free market.

That's funny, I thought the common market was set up by agreement of ... European national governments. And that they can choose to withdraw any time they feel like it. Yet they choose not to. Weird, that, for a continent of 'socialist' governments.

And isn't it the same arrangement for the Common Agricultural Policy, ie set up by governments and administered by the 'EU administration'?

Funny how when European governments get together to do something you like, they are enlightened free-market liberals, but when they get together to do something you don't like, they're socialists. A little consistency would be a nice change.

Oh, and how else do you explain the growing European vote for nationalist parties and the commonly held views that illegal immigrants are exploiting the generosity of the European welfare states?

I'm trying to work out whether you're admitting to sharing the views of these nationalist parties on this issue. Because if not, I just don't see what your point is. Anyway, the 'traditional cultural bounds' of European countries (which haven't been settled for very long anyway) may well be weakening, but this doesn't necessarily mean anything for the future of the social democratic state. People still like this kind of system because they like the standards of living it delivers and are realistic enough to know they have to pay for it.

Oh I agree its a lousy policy but its typical socialist driven redistribution - parachuting money into a sector for the perceived greater good of society as a whole.

Actually it's common knowledge that the CAP harms the interests of society as a whole - the problem is overcoming the political influence enjoyed by the farmers who benefit, especially those very rich ones who benefit most of all. This is simply another case of you calling something socialist because you don't like it.

It averages them out I would have thought, to isolate the two variables the study was interested in?

Sorry, what? Not sure I understand the point you're making, if any. If you're still trying to say that economic background is no more important than genetic inheritance, you're going to have to come up with, oh, some evidence or something. Just repeating it doesn't make it true.

It doesnt state to my mind that parents wealth is *the* decisive factor in determining a childs opportunities.

The research is not trying to establish what *the* decisive factor in determining opportunities is. And for our purposes, it doesn't have to. It is enough that it establishes that economic background is a *significant* factor in determining opportunities.

Incidentally, your later post says that "Shot produces a graph that plots the outcomes of "rich" and "poor" children and claims this is proof that wealth is the decisive factor". I didn't say that it was *the* decisive factor, as you well know.

And while I do care about equal opportunity I accept that there are going to be different variables having an effect on peoples opportunities.

And if you care about it in any kind of actually committed way, you will accept the need to do something about those variables where something can reasonably be done. Otherwise, you don't care about it. As we've seen, economic background is one of those variables. Something can be done about it - redistribution to reduce poverty.

Wealth is only one of them, and I do not feel it is the decisive factor.

As far as I can see, you're basing this on ... nothing. Oh, except the fact that you would prefer it not to be true. But prove me wrong - what would you say is the decisive factor? Or at least, what is more decisive than economic background? And don't say 'hard work' or 'a go-get 'em attitude' or 'gumption' or anything other characteristic which we have no reason to believe is not evenly distributed throughout the population at birth.

So long as every individual does not face any artificial boundaries then Im satisfied.

Bonkey's already addressed this, but haven't we just identified an artificial boundary?

Sure a poor person may have it harder than a rich person

Inequality of opportunity. Which I thought you said you were against.

but many of the people in college are not naturally "gifted". They have to put in many more hours of study to grasp concepts that others pick up much more easily.

And if you're rich you'll not only be more able to afford to go to college, but the evidence suggest you won't have to put in as much extra work to get there as you would if you were poorer. Double inequality of opportunity.

It seems to me that you want equal opportunities as long as it doesn't require a policy you disagree with for any reason. So: you say you want equal opportunities; economic background contributes towards unequal opportunities; redistribution would address this; but you don't like redistribution for other reasons (say because you think it reduces incentives to work); and suddenly equal opportunities isn't so important any more. You like to say you support it, but actually it's far down your list of priorities, below the level of tax for example. Correct me if I'm wrong here.

I dont think so - IQ or learning difficulties are not so much an outcome, as a real detriment to a persons opportunities.

Isn't that what I was saying? In a society with true equality of opportunity, people's outcomes would be decided purely on the basis of how smart they are and how hard they work? But we don't have equality of opportunity now so they're not.

My mother works with special needs children and she has to fight to stop them being consigned to a dead end class where they can be forgotten about by the education system. Their difficulties are as least as much a factor in equality of opportunity as you claim wealth is.

Learning disabilities are obviously a huge factor for those who have them. And if they come from a poor background, they are likely to be doubly disadvantaged. Again, I don't see the conflict with what I was saying, since people with learning difficulties are thankfully in the minority.

If anything, youre confusing outcome with opportunity with the "wealth means you end up smarter" view. Thats based on outcomes afterall, not an examination of opportunities.

Maybe it's because it's late, but I'm just not seeing your point here at all.

Did I say that? To be honest, I was drawing more on the association between the USSR and failed government planned economies and societies which handily demonstrated the unsustainability of socialism. If you want to draw associations between socialist planned economies and loss of personal freedoms, well, I wont stop you.

Well no, you were making some flippant point about how public health and education systems were 'borrowed from the USSR', etc. It's obviously bollocks and you know it.

For quote you mention, that with an eye to a previous poster who explained the British system of bank loans to students which they didnt pay off until they were employed. Thats one way to do it. The individual takes the risk, and is far more motivated to do well because theyll need to pay off that bill.

I'd be more in favour of this kind of thing if there was genuine equality of opportunity in throughout the educational systems, to ensure that economic background had no bearing on access to university. We clearly aren't there yet, so I think the best system for now is to charge fees with a sliding scale of subsidies based on incomes, including completely free for some. The thing is that with a loans system you're offering the same level of risk to people with completely different capacities to absorb risk - a student with rich parents will take it a lot more lightly than someone with no family wealth.

work to make the medical insurance market more competitive

Well if we must have a private insurance system we obviously need more competition. But I've already outlined by concerns about such systems in an above post, and I think a system financed out of general taxation actually represents the best value for money, as an insurance system has such huge scope for market failure.

I mean even the most committed socialist will opt for private health care over public health care any day of the week if they have a choice.

If they can afford it, you mean. The point - obviously - is that most people cant.

Im not a health or education policy expert, but I dont accept that the socialist way of achieving an open education or health system is the best or even the *only* way of achieving those systems.

I never said it was the only way but I do think it is generally the best. But I'm not an expert either.

omnicorp

Some info on Socailism:
[1]http://home.vicnet.net.au/~dmcm/Articles/FAQ.htm
[2]http://www.marxists.org
[3]http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm
[4]http://members.fortunecity.com/stalinmao/
[5]http://www.worldsocialism.org/
[6]http://www.socialism-info.com

Sand

IT shows - as shot pointed out - that "genetic inequalities do not seem to be as important as wealth".

How? All it does is take an evaluation of intelligence and plots it over time for two income brackets. It shows that wealth is a factor, but it doesnt A) Say anything about opportunities (only outcomes) and b) does not provide any information on how we would weight wealth as a factor against many other factors - i.e. how important it is. Girls generally do better than boys in exams but we dont view gender as an important factor in determining the academic opportunities of girls and boys, do we?

When a study shows that economic background is more of a determinant then genetic factors, I'd have to say that no - your gender (being a genetic factor) cannot be the decisive factor

Well youve as much grounds for saying gender is more important than gifts of nature in determining opportunities as you do for saying wealth is more important than gifts of nature.

If you see that as a re-stating of your position, then I'll accept that you meant to say what I said, as opposed to what you wrote.

How can something be imperfectly equal? Isn't that the same as saying its not equal?

Actually this whole "line" came from Shot claiming that economic equality was the determinant of equal opportunity - Shot found it laughable that you could have a definition of equal opportunities that didnt depend on economic equality and produced the disputed graph to show this. So if you have economic equality, then you have equal opportunities. If you dont, then you dont have equal opportunities. Thats Shots position near as I can make out.

My point is that economic equality does not mean equal opportunities, as there are far far more factors involved in a persons academic and professional success and opportunities to advance themselves than mere money in the bank. Youre going to claim a guy who suffers from mental disability enjoys equal opportunities as yourself if your parents are equally wealthy? Garbage - we will never have perfect equal opportunites as there are too many factors in play. I feel economic factors to be only *one* of several factors - The graph shows that its a factor, well woop dee doo - The dumbest twit Ive ever had the misfortune to encounter is loaded and cant hold down a job in supermacs. Not joking. On the other hand one of the most driven and smart people Ive had the pleasure of meeting is very definitly "economically disadvantaged". I know already whose made a better run of their academic study, and I know whose going to be wealthier inside 20 years.

I think Ive been quite consistent on this, whereas youve agreed with me that wealth is only one factor - and then dismissed my view that the graph doesnt show that wealth is the be all and end all. Shots graph may demonstrate wealth is a factor on "outcomes", but it does not show it is either a decisive factor or that it is a decisive factor on determining opportunities.

That's funny, I thought the common market was set up by agreement of ...

A history lesson too long to give is involved....in short the Coal and Steel market was set up by France and Germany to plan output jointly of these vital commodities - very socialist orientated planned economy - same for CAP which was an attempt to fix prices and ECC food production/rural society viable. The common market has since evolved into the liberal free trade market it is and is still working towards....but the National governments havent evolved as fast.

I'm trying to work out whether you're admitting to sharing the views of these nationalist parties on this issue. Because if not, I just don't see what your point is.

Oh good grief - another Redleslie. In a moment laughable irony, Redleslie has already shown that stating the facts as you see them doesnt mean youre somehow an advocate.

Red, what was it you said?

Man in pub - "Portugal won Euro 2004."
Me - "No it was Greece."
Man in pub - "You must support Greece then."
Me - "....."

See Shot, you can say that nationalist socialist forces are rising in prominence in Europe without actually *being* a nationalist socialist!!!!!! OMFG!!! Much as you can say that Greece won Euro 2004 without being a Greek fan. Amazing eh? Thanks for that insight Red, maybe you should read your own posts more often?

It is enough that it establishes that economic background is a *significant* factor in determining opportunities.

But it doesnt even do that though.

Arguing for the sake of arguing, part....oh i dont know pick a number, add a hundred and double it....
I say:

Wealth is only one of them, and I do not feel it is the decisive factor.

Shot retorts....

As far as I can see, you're basing this on ... nothing. Oh, except the fact that you would prefer it not to be true.

So Shot thinks its wrong to say its not the decisive factor....

Incidentally, your later post says that "Shot produces a graph that plots the outcomes of "rich" and "poor" children and claims this is proof that wealth is the decisive factor". I didn't say that it was *the* decisive factor, as you well know.

But hes already said that he doesnt think its the decisive factor either....

So what is it?..Make up your mind! It might help if you formulate a position that isnt reliant on what I think so you can disagree with it! Im not going to waste time with this stuff, A claiming that hes doesnt believe grass is blue, and then disagrees when B says he doesnt think grass is blue.

Like I said, arguing for the sake of arguing. We dont disagree as much as youd like us to.

It seems to me that you want equal opportunities as long as it doesn't require a policy you disagree with for any reason. So: you say you want equal opportunities; economic background contributes towards unequal opportunities; redistribution would address this; but you don't like redistribution for other reasons (say because you think it reduces incentives to work); and suddenly equal opportunities isn't so important any more. You like to say you support it, but actually it's far down your list of priorities, below the level of tax for example. Correct me if I'm wrong here.

Sure, Ill help you to determine what your position is by telling you what mine is so you can disagree with it even if you contradict yourself.

Youve already warned me not to get confused between equal outcomes and equal opportunities. To demonstrate inequal opportunities youve used a graph which plots outcomes as being unequal. Not an examination of the opportunities dependant on wealth, but rather outcomes. Ill take the opportunity to remind you of your own advice.

As much as equal opportunites can be said to exist, then I feel they exist so long as artificial barriers do not exist - does income prevent an artificial barrier without redistribution?..Ill deal with this in a second.

Whats your objective here? Is it to have an open (equal opportuities) education system, or it to find justification for government led redistribution?

If you want to redistribute wealth, then thats all there is to it. Youll find a justification for doing it that satisfies yourself anyway.

But if were actually planning for an open economic system - then we can do so using a policy you actually find agreeable that doesnt involve massive redistribution!

When I said that student loans would be a way of funding the education for individuals without significant cost to the state with the added benefit of asking people to make a serious choice on 3rd level education, which isnt required now because "shure someone else is paying for it" you replied....

I'd be more in favour of this kind of thing if there was genuine equality of opportunity in throughout the educational systems, to ensure that economic background had no bearing on access to university.

So if an open education system, with equal opportunity, is our objective then we can find common ground on how to achieve it that doesnt automatically resort to redistribution to combat wealth inequalities! Again - assuming its an education system with equal *opportunity* your interested in - our views are not as far apart as you want them to be.

I never said it was the only way but I do think it is generally the best. But I'm not an expert either.

Food for thought might be the TCD provost claiming
that "free" college fees are in actuality a subsidy for the middle class students - who god bless them, are wholly committed in the defence of their middle class interests - and that they work to harm the interests of lower income students as the Government thinks.... "We gave you free education ...thats equal opportunities sorted!"

Maybe we should entertain the idea of a different methodology?

AngelofFire

Sand wrote:

People in Tallagaht are relatively poor compared to the average Irish person but they live like Princes compared to the real, absolute, hopeless poor. Theyre positively upper class toffs in comparison. So why isnt socialist redistribution about taking money from wealthy Ireland and spending all of it on improving the conditions of the *real* poor? If there is a compelling argument for impriving the conditions of the poor in Tallaght, then it is dwarfed in comparison by the moral argument for spending every penny on the poor in Darfur instead. I mean, theyre just as human as the poor in Tallaght, theyre far worse off - free education? pfft, those people want drinkable water, they want the right to life, basic food and medicine to prevent deaths from easily cured ailments - so whats the reason for spending it on Tallaght first?
[/I]

Excuse me i am from tallaght and i find that post insulting.There are people in tallaght who are better off than their neighbours in Dublin 16,Dublin 6 and Dublin 14. Figures released a while ago from SDCC show that the numbers of people from tallaght in 3rd level increased significantly after the introduction of free fees(a social democratic inspired policy) particularily with the opening of tallaght IT. The government funds bilateral and multilateral aid programmes which provide for places like Darfur, the only problem is our government isn`t generous enough with the funding for these projects.Socialist policies have improved facilities in tallaght thus lowering crime and making the suburb a better place. Tallaght is now the communications,Services and industrial hub of south west dublin.

shotamoose

Sand wrote:

How? All it does is take an evaluation of intelligence and plots it over time for two income brackets.

And it shows that kids with low early scores from well-off backgrounds tended to overtake kids with high early scores from poor backgrounds. Thus demonstrating that initial positions (which stands in for genetic inheritance) was not as important as economic background in deciding the final positions.

It shows that wealth is a factor, but it doesnt A) Say anything about opportunities (only outcomes)

Measuring outcomes tells us about opportunities. If a social factor - a factor which can be changed - is so important, that tells us something about opportunity in society. Like, if the outcomes of people from one ethnic or linguistic group were consistently much worse than those of people from another, that would tell us something about opportunity.

and b) does not provide any information on how we would weight wealth as a factor against many other factors - i.e. how important it is.

Just because a piece of research doesn't answer every question in the world, doesn't mean it doesn't answer some questions. This research answers the question "Is economic background a significant factor in cognitive and educational development" with a strong "Yes". Since economic background is not a function of genetics or any other 'natural law', it is clearly a factor that affects equality of opportunity.

Girls generally do better than boys in exams but we dont view gender as an important factor in determining the academic opportunities of girls and boys, do we?

Depending on their perspective, some people do. The gender gap is not constant across subjects, and in some countries is hardly there at all. Inasmuch as gender gaps are a function of genes, they're arguably unconnected to the issue of 'opportunity', but inasmuch as they're products of social relationships, then they are connected.

Well youve as much grounds for saying gender is more important than gifts of nature in determining opportunities as you do for saying wealth is more important than gifts of nature.

Maybe, maybe not. If gender gaps are related to both genetics and wealth (for example, boys from poorer backgrounds may react differently to educational setbacks than boys from well-off backgrounds, but if girls from poorer backgrounds don't to the same extent then that looks like a genetics gap combined with a wealth gap), then the the greater importance of wealth already established still holds.

Actually this whole "line" came from Shot claiming that economic equality was the determinant of equal opportunity

:rolleyes: Stop making this stuff up. I didn't say it was the determinant. I said it was a significant factor, and it clearly is. You're just making my position more extreme so it's easier to argue against.

So if you have economic equality, then you have equal opportunities. If you dont, then you dont have equal opportunities. Thats Shots position near as I can make out.

Since I said that economic inequality was a significant factor but did not say that it was the only and sole determinant, no, that's not my position. But since it is a significant factor, reducing economic inequality should lead to more equal opportunities.

My point is that economic equality does not mean equal opportunities, as there are far far more factors involved in a persons academic and professional success and opportunities to advance themselves than mere money in the bank. Youre going to claim a guy who suffers from mental disability enjoys equal opportunities as yourself if your parents are equally wealthy? Garbage

Let's see, what did I post on the exact same page?

Learning disabilities are obviously a huge factor for those who have them.

Yet you chose to ignore this, and set up this nice big straw man to take pot shots at. Garbage is right.

You're actually playing the same dumb trick as you did when you claimed that all European governments were socialist and that state education policies were copied from Soviet Russia - invent an extreme fantasy version of what the other person is saying, and argue against that.

So I'll spell it out, again - obviously someone with learning difficulties does not have the same opportunities as someone without, but you can only really measure inequality of opportunity by comparing people with similar levels of mental ability, which is exactly what the study we've been discussing does. In a society with true equality of opportunity, people's outcomes would be decided on the basis of how smart they are and how hard they work. Your approach seems to be to say "Look, people with mental disabilities! Therefore equality of opportunity is not only impossible but not worth even talking about, so let's stop all this crazy talk, even though I said earlier that "Sure a poor person may have it harder than a rich person"".

I feel economic factors to be only *one* of several factors - The graph shows that

So you admit - again - that it is a factor, but you're still arguing ... what? That nothing should be done about this factor of inequality of opportunity, because there happen to be others?

The dumbest twit Ive ever had the misfortune to encounter is loaded and cant hold down a job in supermacs. Not joking. On the other hand one of the most driven and smart people Ive had the pleasure of meeting is very definitly "economically disadvantaged". I know already whose made a better run of their academic study, and I know whose going to be wealthier inside 20 years.

That's amazing, Sand. Maybe you should publish your anecdotal evidence in a scientific journal, I'm sure everyone will be stunned by your findings.

Look, what the Feinstein research did was identify patterns. He didn't say "All poor children will be dumb from now until eternity", so your anecdotes say nothing.

Shots graph may demonstrate wealth is a factor on "outcomes", but it does not show it is either a decisive factor or that it is a decisive factor on determining opportunities.

What's the difference between 'a factor' (which you've said it is) and 'a decisive factor' (which you say it isn't)? What are you basing the distinction on? If there is more than one factor, can any one of them be 'decisive'? If not, why are you talking about 'decisive factors' since eveyone agrees there is more than one?

A history lesson too long to give is involved....

Yeah yeah, but you said these were socialist governments. If that were true, wouldn't they pull out of a free trade agreement? Or is it not that European governments each have a mix of socialist and liberal-capitalist policies?

Oh good grief - another Redleslie. In a moment laughable irony, Redleslie has already shown that stating the facts as you see them doesnt mean youre somehow an advocate.

I know that, but I was genuinely wondering why you were bringing up these far-right parties. You said you believe that Europe's traditional cultural bounds
were weakening, right? Now, is that what these parties are also saying? If not, why did you bring them up? I wasn't trying to shut you up by tarring you with the same brush, just trying to work out why you said it.

But it doesnt even do that though.

For the last time, yes it does. A quote from the article:

"This paper finds, first, that there were significant differences in the educational performance of children from different social groups in this data ... Family background plays a large role in influencing the mobility of children within the distributions of ability at different ages".

I say:

Quote:
Wealth is only one of them, and I do not feel it is the decisive factor.


Shot retorts....

Quote:
As far as I can see, you're basing this on ... nothing. Oh, except the fact that you would prefer it not to be true.


So Shot thinks its wrong to say its not the decisive factor....

Quote:
Incidentally, your later post says that "Shot produces a graph that plots the outcomes of "rich" and "poor" children and claims this is proof that wealth is the decisive factor". I didn't say that it was *the* decisive factor, as you well know.


But hes already said that he doesnt think its the decisive factor either....

So what is it?..Make up your mind!

I'll walk you through it nice and easy. I didn't express a view on whether economic background was the decisive factor in determining outcomes, but you said I did.

You then said that you didn't think that wealth is the decisive factor, without giving a reason (such as "here's what I think is the decisive factor"). You're the one who brought up this 'decisive factor' business, as a straw man to argue against, but you didn't actually have an argument against it. By pointing that out, I wasn't saying that wealth is the decisive factor, because i don't think there can be a single decisive factor in something so complicated.

Youve already warned me not to get confused between equal outcomes and equal opportunities. To demonstrate inequal opportunities youve used a graph which plots outcomes as being unequal. Not an examination of the opportunities dependant on wealth, but rather outcomes.

Outcomes which indicate opportunities. If you really think that outcomes tell us nothing about opportunities then (a) you're alone, and (b) there really is no point you having this argument because according to that worldview, the very terms of the argument are invalid. [continued below ...]

shotamoose

continued ...

Sand wrote:

Whats your objective here? Is it to have an open (equal opportuities) education system, or it to find justification for government led redistribution?

My objective is for economic background to have no or as little as possible effect on opportunities. The education system is only part of that - as the Feinstein research shows, background has an effect before children even reach school.

So it's not just education policy that has to be looked at, but all the ways that economic background, education and opportunity interact. For example, homelessness and overcrowding can severely damage children's educational prospects, so to eradicate that difference you have to eradicate homelessness and overcrowding. Then there's the argument for much more accessible child-care so that lone parents can work if they want and we won't have so many children brought up in workless households. This is still 'redistribution', since these things generally have to be paid to at least some extent out of taxation, which in most countries weighs more heavily on the rich.

So the debate over university funding comes very late in the day in terms of equality of opportunity, and even education reform is not the whole story. Unemployment, bad housing, lack of access to childcare, ill-health - these are all aspects of economic background which affect equality of opportunity, all of which can be affected by a variety of policies, some of which have to be funded from redistribution.

So no, I'm not in favour of redistribution for it's own sake. I'm in favour of it because of what it can achieve.

omnicorp

Well, I don't know how a system based on making money is better than a democratic, equal system.