Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
I assumed you agreed with it, am I wrong?
|
No.
Quote:
|
Simply look at the most major standard of living gains in history and you will find your position is incorrect. Certainly there is not a vacuum, certainly there was what came before, and what is, but real wealth creation involves steps of living standard improvement for a community, not gradual change. Oh, here is that digital v. analog thing again, no wonder we don't understand each other. An example, when Edison harnessed electricity for commercial use of light, it was not in a vacuum (no pun intended with the electric light bulb), but boom! It changed the world. It created real wealth. It created real living standard improvements.
|
After that "boom!" where did all that wealth land? Was Edison unhurt?
Quote:
|
Your assumption is that throwing more and more money at a broken system will make it strong.
|
Your assumption is false.
Quote:
|
In my view throwing more money at a broken system is a waste of money.
|
It depends on how the money is used, clearly.
Quote:
|
I would rather people keep the money and allocate it based on their needs and choices. For example if a public school system spends $15,000 per student per year, and a private school can do it for $4,000 and get better results - why would you want more tax dollars being spent in the public school?
|
It depends. How are the results gauged? There are inherent flaws across the board and worldwide with regard to how "performance" is gauged in school systems. It also depends on accessibility. It doesn't matter how much better and cost-efficient the private system is if few can afford it.
Quote:
|
You don't ask those kinds of questions, I do.
|
Forgive me, but your questions are too generic and therefore not very thought-provoking. Also, did you use a real example, or was that made up?