Down with captalism

[James]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by cloricus [/i]
[B]

This, as [b]I've[/b] seen is a [i]fair[/i] analysis of the American political system. It's an alternative to democracy and it's also most likely the reason that is coursing America to slowly fall apart.[/quote][/b]

[color=#808080]I'd still like to know how America is "slowly falling apart".[/color][quote][i]

Originally posted by Cloricus:[/i][b]

Now even if you don't agree with the above, which I can almost guaranty James won?t, you still have to admit that America isn't really a democracy in the sense of the word anymore. One of the most clear cut examples is how the persent president got into power. Both sides played so dirty that in the end it was basically a toss of a coin that decided the winner. (Anyone could have won.)[/quote][/b]

[color=#808080]Well, I don't know how the electoral college decided on Bush. And I do know that he didn't receive the majority of the popular vote.

But, I'd point you to our own electoral system. The person who wins the most votes isn't necessarily the person who is elected to office. There is a [i]reason[/i] for that - vote numbers are adjusted based on a huge number of factors (population, geography, etc etc) and ultimately, the result is designed to be more fair; to take into account the views of everyone in their entirity. I could go into more detail about that, but I [i]assume[/i] that the electoral college is doing the same thing as our preferential voting system.

So it's not a question of the winner being the toss of a coin. It's a question of following a carefully designed process, which more accurately reflects the public vote.[/color][quote]

[i]Originally posted by Cloricus:[/i][b]

But as I stated before, Capitalism has its place in the world. Personally I believe that place is America, it?s what made the country so great and it?s what?s most likly going to kill it in the future, economically.[/quote][/b]

[color=#808080]Once again, [i]how[/i] could capitalism possibly kill America economically?

How on Earth can we have a reasonable discussion if you're going to throw vague comments like that around? I don't think I'm unreasonable to ask you to clarify that. I want you to tell me exactly how capitalism is going to kill America, economically.[/color]

[quote][i]Originally posted by Cloricus:[/i][b]

I?m aware that I skipped over a lot which will most likely make my post non-understandable but my IPT and English assignments are more important and I just wanted to get that quote in while clarifying my earlier post and also to tell James that that thing about the University was a one of rant. Which no longer applies because the uni I want to go to has said that they don?t intend to increase their prices if the changes come in. :P

Eps ? Heh! [/B][/QUOTE]

[color=#808080]Ohh, so you were just [i]ranting[/i]. Even though you tried to tie a vague link between what I said and the Treasurer's budget speech (when there was no link whatsoever) and then tried to tell me that it made my post "silly". I see.

Perhaps next time you could keep the ranting out of your posts - or at least put up a tag with something like "WARNING! Unrelated, clumsy RANT ahead!"

I'm sorry Cloricus, but your attempt to just shrug that off is really lame. lol

Honestly, you can't expect me to take you seriously if you draw some kind of ridiculous comparison in all seriousness, and then later shrug it off as a rant, as though I should have just ignored it in the first place. If you're not going to discuss things properly, then you really shouldn't be posting in the thread. All I'm asking is a little more thought before you post.[/color]

[Guest cloricus]

WARNING! James do not read ahead, may contain opinion and information that you may not be aware of with bad linking to where to find that information excusing google!

I personally do not fully, or even remotely understand the complexities of the problem with the American economy at the moment. Only from what I have seen/read/watched and observed.
This is my interpretation of that information -
The main problem is trade, as you maybe aware America is losing a lot of trade to other countries from a large mix of factors. Most of them coming from the government and G. Bush directly, but in no way limited to them. Though you also may know that America goes through a constant cycle. At the moment it is in the downward slide part of it, in the past there has been no threat from this because there has been no challenge. But that could change by the time America reaches the bottom of this cycle. (Which I might be able to find the graph of tomorrow.) It all depends on how quickly the EU and China get on their feat, now if they scoop most of America's trade during this time it will not give America anything to pull it's self out of the down patch. And to use Bush's quote "Most of our imports come from out side of the country" and without imports and exports the local economies does badly. *Points to Argentina.* Then you just get a downward spiral.

I know that didn?t sum it up very well but did you expect a two page report? I know there is a lot of information about this on the net from reliable sources; it is a well documented happening.

Added -
I don't believe that I "Later decided to shrug it off", I guess this is the first time I get to say this and it's only a poor response but you should go back and read my post, you will have found this at the end of it.
"(Sorry about above, I just wanted to rant about that because I'm really pissed at the situation.)" At the time I was very annoyed, I'm not any more for the above stated reasons.

Eps - I can shrug off what ever I want, I think?

[James]

[color=#808080]Oh god...I give up. lol

Firstly, did you even [i]understand[/i] my comment about your shrugging off of what you'd said earlier? Your little warning doesn't make any sense, not to mention the fact that I'm not criticizing you for an opinion -- I'm criticizing you for making a an irrelevant jab at something I've said and then glossing over it as though you didn't mean it or something. Geeze.

Secondly, your entire set of "observations" about the United States is all fine and good. But I don't see how any of it would bring you to the conclusion that the United States' economy will be "killed" in the future as a result of the factors you mentioned.

You think Bush's stupid comment about imports has [i]any[/i] bearing on the future of the US economy? And your contention about how the downturn in the economy is somehow more threatening because there is a challenge is also pretty hard to prove, in my view.

For one thing, you're forgetting that most of the world's economies are basket cases right now; a lot worse than that of the United States. In addition, you're implying that China's development is going to be a factor in the so-called "death" of the US economy. No, I don't think so. If anything, China's expansion is going to fuel further American investment within China (as it's already been doing). Whilst you may possibly argue that Chinese products could replace American counterparts around the world (which is probably a fair comment, though you never actually pointed it out), I could also argue that America's losses would be offset by their increased investment within China (American products being distributed in a market where personal wealth is growing, due to an increase in freedom and democracy).

I'm starting to feel that we're going around in circles here. Cloricus, you don't even seem to grasp why I took issue with your dismissive comments earlier. And furthermore, I don't see any relevance in the observations you've brought up here; they're just a mish-mash of elements that may or may not have negative connotations toward America. Not only is much of it unrelated to America's economic performance, but I'd say that none of it addresses the question of [i]why[/i] America's economy is going to die, as you specifically stated.

EDIT: I still don't buy your explanation. You may have been ranting (and I accept that you were). But that doesn't excuse a poor argument, does it? Just as you decided to use your rant to attack my post, I defended what I said and pointed out why your attack was wrong. That's fair.[/color]

[klinanime1]

I must say, as entertaining as this discussion is, why is someone actually vouching for a "controlled anarchy?" If it's controlled, it's not an anarchy. True, the US doesn't have a true democracy, but still,I mean at least we've got SOME say in the government, and it's not like we didn't have Congress vote to make Bush head of the military for a short period of time during the Iraq incident.
Personally, I think the economic standings of the US is due to the fact that US citizens are freaking out and refuse to spend their money for fear that our economy will plummet. Problem with that is that the economy will plummet UNLESS we spend our money. *sigh* The country seemingly is becomming less informed and more paranoid.
By the way, you know Argentina doesn't have a steady government, and they have elections, on the average, every two weeks, right?

[Guest Voodookanaka]

y do ppl have to choose pre made package holid.. i mean societies. Y not create a new structure where everyone looks out for themselves, and noone else, working from ideals closer to anarchy than socialism.

[klinanime1]

Try to think up of something not done, something TRULY original, that doesn't have anything to do with shooting & sacrificing people out into space. I will commend you.
Most of what you'll think up is probably a permutation and combination of other societies and economic structures.

[Guest Voodookanaka]

all i know is this non nomadic lifestyle of mine is drivin me nuts *goes back to tryin to finish pointless art project*

[Kent]

LoL...

This topic couldnt get any better.

Basically, capitalism is the basis one of the most important systems ever created... writing.

Thats right.

Go check it out yourself, look up the first civilizations/mesopatania.

This is what happend... people all stored their crops yeilded during the growing season in one huge place.

Eventually people realized that they were putting in certain amount, but the cheiftons were giving it out as they pleased and not giving it back to the people who worked to grow it.

Inturn, the "farmers" decided a system of record keeping was needed, and the birth of the words first written code came about - cuniform.

This was all due to the fact that those who worked, wished to prosper from their efforts and not allow their work to be redistributed at the wishes of another party.

This "redistibution" of wealth is the very basis of socialism, and is the cause of a major problem. (for those people.)

Basically, good will is not bad, it is the greatest thing in the world.

But forcfully taking and redistributing wealth is a aweful way to create a better society.

Infact, it can easily lead to hostilities and more importantly, the mis-managment of our hard earned monitary units.

I really dont like getting into political ideological debates here on the boards due to the often mis and un-inform nature of a great deal of younger members...

However, I do believe that socialism is a well intended, poorly formed thought.

Remember the soviet union always... remember the 10 million North Koreans who had died due to the socialist system called communism.

Remember most importantly, that at the heart of all communist/socialist systems that have worked, were people who wished to be involved.

Forcing people creates hostility.

Socialism forces people to give who would, could or have already given on their own.

I also want to remind you of a qoute...

"the road to hell is paved with good intentions." (unknown)

Basically, I believe in capitalism, and I also know for a fact that a society can be socialist while still remaining a capitalist society.

I also want to remind everyone of a place where communism works very well... the monistaries of mid-evil Ireland.

Another interesting thought would be to revise you topics thesis...

Down with capitalism is a totally different subject than discussing the theoretical benefits of socialism.

[klinanime1]

*sigh* okay, one more time. Capitalism is a form of economy. You're comparing a consumer based market to communism and socialism. Capitalism is NOT a form of governement, because a socialist government can have a capitalist economy.

[Justin]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Transtic Nerve [/i]
[B]
And George Bush is in office because American morons voted him in there. He's no tin there because he has money, although I'm sure that got him some votes, but if Americans weren't as dumb as Bush, he wouldn't be in office. He simply relates very well with most Americans. lol. [/B][/QUOTE]

I wish you'd stop doing that. You're very quick to jump on someone else who so boldly makes an aggravating statement when it aggravates you, yet you refuse to curtail your own.

I say that with respectful honesty.

The fact of the matter is, no form of government or economy will ever be completely perfect. "Why?" you ask? Because it's run by the human race; and I hope we've all figured out by now that no one in the entire human race is perfect.

-Justin

[James]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by klinanime1 [/i]
[B]*sigh* okay, one more time. Capitalism is a form of economy. You're comparing a consumer based market to communism and socialism. Capitalism is NOT a form of governement, because a socialist government can have a capitalist economy. [/B][/QUOTE]

[color=#808080]I'd say that's half true.

If you look at socialist Russia during the middle of the last century (and if you look at most communist/socialist nations), there is inherently a limit on capitalism. This is because, in many ways, capitalism is the polar opposite of communism - communism is a "one size fits all" policy, where wealth is shared among the people (to put it in very blunt terms). Whereas capitalism is a far more flexible system where the individual has more self ownership rights.

I mean, it's only recently become legal to purchase certain quantities of land for private use - and that's in Russia.

China is probably the best example of a communist nation with a growing "capitalist" economic system. But of course, communism places its inherent restrictions on capitalism in that country too. It's very hard to put both together, I think - it's certainly never been done successfully before.[/color]

[Harry]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Transtic Nerve [/i]
[B]Well everyone has to have something, and America got capitalism.

The only reason socialism is so looked down upon is because of the communists. Everyone thinks evil when you think communism, and socialism is right around the corner from that so naturally, anyone who doesn't know anything, which is 80% of the world, would naturally think socialism is evil. [/b][/quote]
Communism is evil.

[quote]American won't become socialist for the main reason that it was and has been so against that thought for so many years. I believe there is ONE socialist program still in use today in America. It's a dam somewhere in Tennessee somewhere I believe. Or something like that. Everything else that has been "socialized" has been shut down or abandoned. I believe that thing in Tenessee gains alot of profit for the government, they decided to keep it. Ofcourse no one knows about it, but hey, oh well.[/quote]
It's not becoming socialist because the democrats here don't know how to be socialists. Every single program they have started has been one big mess and is heavily exploited.

[Kent]

Well I gotta say that the qoute from tn, by justin... well... it was intresting to say the least.

"no comment"
*in response to earlier comments*

However, I thought it would be a good point to make that right now in America there is something bordering on socialism already in place.

The public education, the welfare and the government aid programs (in places such as education, job training and disastor relief)

There has been no legitimate standard set in the past to establish what a government must provide to be differentiated between a socialist nation and nation which simply governs the people.

I say that only with the confidence the entire world has not yet created a system of government that actually provides for all... not just in theory, but a system that has actually delivered.

With the idea of no government actually delivering, it becomes a question, to me, of how close a country to actually taking care of the majority of its people.

I dont know if something like that will ever be done, but I believe that right now, the nations of the world, in all of their socialist ideology have still failed to provide a fully developed system to care for the people of a country.

-rambling... back to america-

America to some extent provides a semi-socialist system.

Welfare, public education, "progressive taxation" (which it does no matter what is said... the poor of america do pay minimal taxes compared to the middle and upper class)

All of those three subjects and practices are part of the socialist structure created by carl marx.

I have to go to work right now, but this thread just blew up on me over night with intelectual stim. so I just might be back.

[Harry]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by GoKents [/i]
[B]

The public education, the welfare and the government aid programs (in places such as education, job training and disastor relief)[/B][/QUOTE]
Most of those are failures. The Public Education sucks, the welfare is exploited by like half the people that get it, and only some of the people that need government aid gets it.

[Chaos]

There you go again, Harry.

1) Some states have WONDERFUL public education

2) Can you prove half of the people on welfare exploit?

3) Or is it most? Hell, it might be none. Until you have numbers, kindly stay quiet.

-- -- --

James, to go back to old matters, facism was great in pre WWII times. Nazism greatly enheartened the people of Germany at the time. Sure, there were economic troubles, but that was war debt that was all put on the Germans' shoulders. I suppose I should have specifically said how it was "ideal for a certain population".

Capitalism is about free enterprise, yes, but I've seen WalMart employees on strike because the building of a new supercenter made a small, family-owned gift store go out of business. One of the protesters had a sign that read "Power to the underdogs - Stop retail dictatorship!". A week later, I read in the paper the strike had been settled, and most of the workers got a considerably nice raise. There hasn't been a peep of complaint since then, and that was a few months ago.

Now then, don't try to play me when I live neck-deep in this ********. ;)

[Harry]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Chaos [/i]
[B]
1) Some states have WONDERFUL public education[/b][quote]
Which ones?

[quote]2) Can you prove half of the people on welfare exploit?[/quote]
I'll get back to you on that.

[James]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Chaos [/i]
[B]

James, to go back to old matters, facism was great in pre WWII times. Nazism greatly enheartened the people of Germany at the time. Sure, there were economic troubles, but that was war debt that was all put on the Germans' shoulders. I suppose I should have specifically said how it was "ideal for a certain population".

Capitalism is about free enterprise, yes, but I've seen WalMart employees on strike because the building of a new supercenter made a small, family-owned gift store go out of business. One of the protesters had a sign that read "Power to the underdogs - Stop retail dictatorship!". A week later, I read in the paper the strike had been settled, and most of the workers got a considerably nice raise. There hasn't been a peep of complaint since then, and that was a few months ago.

Now then, don't try to play me when I live neck-deep in this ********. ;) [/B][/QUOTE]

[color=#808080]I would strongly dispute the idea that facism was [i]great[/i] in pre WWII times. I know two different German families, with whom I've discussed this very issue among others (including WWII itself).

Once again, it's easy to make these comments when you're living in a free nation. But if you go back and ask older Germans how they felt about that era, most will tell you that it was a painful time for Germany. Of course, the era ended with WWII. But even before the war, the government system in Germany was horribly oppressive and the entire society was suffering as a result.

As far as your second paragraph; I don't know what point you're trying to make. Are you trying to say that capitalism has its casualties?

If that's your message, I agree. But once again, capitalism is not perfect - and I don't think anyone would imply that it is. Rather, I think the message is that you [i]can[/i] have capitalism, as long as you have a robust safety net underpinning it.

Your example about the strike dispute being settled is exactly what I'm talking about. I'm not trying to sit here and say that capitalism is perfect and every other system is pointless. [i]Any[/i] economic system will have problems, which will always need a counterbalance.

What I am saying, however, is that when comparing capitalism to communism, there is simply no equating the two.

And Harry...as far as public education goes, I think you'll find that Australia is an example of a strong public education system (unless you're talking about American states, in which case my comment is irrelevant).

As far as exploitation goes...yes, welfare is often heavily exploited. But what are we going to do? You will never stop exploitation of public services. It can be human nature to lie, cheat, etc...

Just the same as you'll never get rid of crime. I mean, you certainly can't attack welfare systems by saying that they are exploited (as though that should be a reason for removing or degrading them). That's like saying that we should never have big public events, for fear of terrorism or something. Any system will be exploited, but such systems also provide immeasureable benefits to a large group of people.[/color]

[Kent]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Justin [/i]
[B]I wish you'd stop doing that. You're very quick to jump on someone else who so boldly makes an aggravating statement when it aggravates you, yet you refuse to curtail your own.

I say that with respectful honesty.

The fact of the matter is, no form of government or economy will ever be completely perfect. "Why?" you ask? Because it's run by the human race; and I hope we've all figured out by now that no one in the entire human race is perfect.

-Justin [/B][/QUOTE]

This is a good reply to what tn said, but I think it would have also benefited from a bit more of the insulting and ingnorant tone that tn himself put forth.

Basically though, I think you 100% right on, its a problem to make such obviously radical and insulting statments until an un-named, above the rules, member/mod. wants to make such a statment... then its ok for anything to be said, as long as it is bashing the "right."

And unfortunatly, there is no way around this stuff, what has been said, has been said.
I dont think any sort of retractions will occurr and I dont think an apology would ever be given. (lord knows apologies are never needed when your "only stating the truth...lol.")

I guess I could easily flame this up and show some of my feelings, but I think I will do what the un-named moderator couldn't, and avoid insulting and inflamitory speech.

[Heaven's Cloud]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by James [/i]
[B][color=#808080]And Harry...as far as public education goes, I think you'll find that Australia is an example of a strong public education system (unless you're talking about American states, in which case my comment is irrelevant).
[/color] [/B][/QUOTE]

[color=indigo]I think that there are several misconceptions about the American Educational system. Public schooling varies from state to state and county to county. It is ludicrous to compare the educational system of Australia to that of America. Our country is too big large to be designed in a similar way. Because of Australia?s size and demographic region, their educational system does not suffer the same degree of variance that schools in the US do.

If public schools in your area are poor, then you shouldn't be blaming Bush and the national government. You should be blaming governmental policies that are made on local and statewide levels.

The school district that I came from in Maryland was one of the top districts in the US. Many of my elementary and junior high teachers held master's degrees in teaching. They were encouraged to attend teaching workshops and their salaries were near the highest in the country. The district that I came from was not a wealthy district (it actually had the second lowest income per capita in what is considered the D.C. outskirts) the board of education for the county just placed education high on their priority list.

In stark contrast, there is the school that I attended in Davie county North Carolina, which, at the time, was one of the poorest performing districts in the country. The school had a difficult time attracting teachers, because they had the lowest pay rate in the entire state, and an even harder time keeping them. One of the biggest problems they had (which they now seem to have resolved) was that they didn't rise above government standards. For example, I read the Odyssey in 6th grade (in MD), and then I read it again in the ninth grade (in NC). I never remember any of my tar-heel state teachers attending workshops. The teachers lacked encouragement and financing from our county and state government (we couldn't even get a bond referendum to pass) and most of the grants we received were mismanaged and used on pointless things (like the construction of a brick wall surrounding the outside of the high school).

It is this huge variance between states that causes nationwide befuddlement about our educational system. The thing is, this is not a national problem, this is a local problem...that is why I find it so odd that no one pays attention to there local elections and their bond referendum votes.
[/color]

[James]

[color=#808080]Actually, I wouldn't say that it's ludicrous to compare the United States to Australia in terms of education. Perhaps you have misconceptions about how [i]our[/i] education system works? ~_^

Our system is much like yours, in the sense that school policy is not something dictated by the Federal Government. In fact, the Federal Government essentially plays no role in either primary (elementary) or secondary school education.

Rather, the states themselves are responsible for school policy. And specifically, state boards of education are responsible for setting cirriculum guidelines. My state, for example, has totally different systems for dealing with University entrance than say...New South Wales. Of course, both states are using different educational systems, but both are essentially arriving at the same goal.

Secondly, what do size and "demographic region" have to do with it? I mean, it's not like we have the same number of schools as the USA but with less people in each school; we obviously have a level of schooling that services our population, the same as the USA. So that argument seems a bit moot to me - it's a relative issue.

And I don't know what you mean by demographic region. That's a very vague term and you haven't really specified what you mean by it.

Having said all of the above, I don't feel that your point about the education system in America being controlled on local levels is any excuse for poor school performance. As I said, Australia has a similar system. The only major difference that I would really point to would be the fact that the Federal Government works with the states to set up robust standards that schools need to meet. That creates a business-like, competitive environment for all schools (where schools invariably benefit by competing in a sense). I get the impression that the Bush Administration actually wants to increase accountability in schools -- an idea which several public servants in the USA have not liked. But Bush is right; more accountability is always important, particularly when it comes to creating national standards (whereby all students can reach certain levels of accomplishment within a certain timeframe).

So, I personally don't think I have any misconceptions about the American education system. You might have been referring to someone else, but you quoted my post, which is why I'm responding now. I hope that I've at least clarified my viewpoint.[/color]

[Heaven's Cloud]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by James [/i]
[B][color=#808080]Actually, I wouldn't say that it's ludicrous to compare the United States to Australia in terms of education. Perhaps you have misconceptions about how [i]our[/i] education system works? ~_^

Our system is much like yours, in the sense that school policy is not something dictated by the Federal Government. In fact, the Federal Government essentially plays no role in either primary (elementary) or secondary school education.

Rather, the states themselves are responsible for school policy. And specifically, state boards of education are responsible for setting cirriculum guidelines. My state, for example, has totally different systems for dealing with University entrance than say...New South Wales. Of course, both states are using different educational systems, but both are essentially arriving at the same goal.

Secondly, what do size and "demographic region" have to do with it? I mean, it's not like we have the same number of schools as the USA
but with less people in each school; we obviously have a level of schooling that services our population, the same as the USA. So that argument seems a bit moot to me - it's a relative issue.

And I don't know what you mean by demographic region. That's a very vague term and you haven't really specified what you mean by it.

Having said all of the above, I don't feel that your point about the education system in America being controlled on local levels is any excuse for poor school performance. As I said, Australia has a similar system. The only major difference that I would really point to would be the fact that the Federal Government works with the states to set up robust standards that schools need to meet. That creates a business-like, competitive environment for all schools (where schools invariably benefit by competing in a sense). I get the impression that the Bush Administration actually wants to increase accountability in schools -- an idea which several public servants in the USA have not liked. But Bush is right; more accountability is always important, particularly when it comes to creating national standards (whereby all students can reach certain levels of accomplishment within a certain timeframe).

So, I personally don't think I have any misconceptions about the American education system. You might have been referring to someone else, but you quoted my post, which is why I'm responding now. I hope that I've at least clarified my viewpoint.[/color] [/B][/QUOTE]

[color=indigo]Maybe my post was not clear enough. I was not admonishing the federal government for the wrong donigs in the american educational system, in fact, I was noting the variation between blaming the fedral government opposed to blaming state governments.

As for demographics, you have entirely missed my point (although maybe I did not clarify the point that I had wished to make). I am well aware that Australia is broken down "sectionally", I know that they have areas, or states, that have political prowess. I quoted your post because you specifically mentioned "American states", and it indicated that no American States have strong educational systems, which is ludicrous. Some states have extremely good educational systems some have extremely poor ones.

Increasing accountability in schools is a great idea, but who is going to be in charge of keeping tabs on the standards? State governments? They haven't done too good of a job so far. What makes you think a similar program to work? What the government need to do is cut ALL federal aide to states that don't meet minimum fedral critereia. [/color]

[klinanime1]

...? *cocks head* Well, on that lovely note... Yeah, schools need to up the standards, but so do families (grammar...?). What's the government going to do, moderate those too? Isn't the "ALL federal aide" a little harsh? I mean, what are the standards, anyway? What if the students are just really dumb?

[James]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Heaven's Cloud [/i]
[B][color=indigo]Maybe my post was not clear enough. I was not admonishing the federal government for the wrong donigs in the american educational system, in fact, I was noting the variation between blaming the fedral government opposed to blaming state governments.

As for demographics, you have entirely missed my point (although maybe I did not clarify the point that I had wished to make). I am well aware that Australia is broken down "sectionally", I know that they have areas, or states, that have political prowess. I quoted your post because you specifically mentioned "American states", and it indicated that no American States have strong educational systems, which is ludicrous. Some states have extremely good educational systems some have extremely poor ones.

Increasing accountability in schools is a great idea, but who is going to be in charge of keeping tabs on the standards? State governments? They haven't done too good of a job so far. What makes you think a similar program to work? What the government need to do is cut ALL federal aide to states that don't meet minimum fedral critereia. [/color] [/B][/QUOTE]

[color=#808080]Firstly, I [i]know[/i] that you aren't blaming the federal government for the American education system (and any problems it may or may not have). I never implied that. I was simply pointing out the [i]similarities[/i] in structure between both systems. So that's the first point.

Secondly, you misinterpreted my reference to American states. I thought that the original person I'd quoted was talking about national standards (when comparing various nations). And in brackets, I said "unless you're talking about American states, where my post would be irrelevant" or something of that nature. So, I wasn't sure if I'd misunderstood the original post.

I never inferred directly or indirectly that [i]any[/i] states within the United States have a poor education system. I was simply trying to point out that I wasn't entirely sure about what the original quote was referring to. Of course I understand that different states have different standards; that's not exactly rocket science.

In regard to demographics, once again, you've not really explained what you mean. You mention demographics but then you go on to point out something that you think I was inferring, which may or may not be related to demographic comparisons between both countries. By demographics, you could be talking about issues of race, socioeconomic status, political ideology...anything. That's all I was trying to do; nail down what you mean by differing demographics.

And finally, yes...as I said, more accountability is needed. But where did I ever suggest that the United States' individual states should be responsible for school accountability? I never mentioned it, nor did I infer it. I was talking exclusively about the education system we have here - whether or not you choose to compare it to the USA is another matter entirely. That wasn't my point. I was simply clarifying and explaining what we do here and how the education system is divided up.

In Australia, states are primarily responsible for handling school accountability. If a state is doing this job poorly, then it needs to rethink and restructure its approach. If specific states can do it here, then specific states/provinces can do it [i]anywhere[/i]. It's not a question of saying "the state can't do it, so who will?" The state [i]can[/i] do it and would be able to do it if the funding/training/standards/monitoring etc... were all appropriate. I mean, there are so many issues there.

I am not trying to say what America should/should not do, nor am I trying to convey the idea that the system here can be applied everywhere. Where our states might be capable and efficient when it comes to monitoring schools, states and territories in other regions may not. That much should be obvious. And even here, of course, there are different standards in each state and each different state has its own individual successes and failures when it comes to educational standards.

I really feel that we're getting off the track a bit here. My original comment in brackets was definitely taken the wrong way by you, which is probably my fault - it wasn't worded very well. But now I've explained it.

Also, just touching on the demographics again...as I read your post, I see that you might simply be using the word "demographics" to describe the breaking down of responsibility based on specific territories (ie: states). If that's the case, fine. But generally, when you mention the word "demographics", you're talking about a whole host of issues that deal with centers of population. So it's only natural for me to ask for further clarification - it's not unreasonable of me, and it's certainly not unreasonable of anyone else to ask me for clarification on what I'm saying too.

That post was longer than intended, but I hope it uncrosses the wires here.[/color]

[klinanime1]

Question addressing James: You're REALLY enjoying this discussion, aren't you?
Anyway, who says regulating education is going to help everything? Or am I getting the gist of the conversation all wrong?