Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You're supposed to get general/civic/fundamental studies in high school, so that you can graduate as a reasonably functional and critically-thinking adult.
College is to extend that understanding to make you an exceptionally functional and critically-enabled adult prepared to take a stronger role in the world.
Trade schools are where you learn which cable to plug in where, which end of a wrench is which and how to do triple-entry bookkeeping.
Quote:
Most people I know who got literature crammed down their throats in HS, and the obligatory freshman lit class in college, btw, never learned a thing. To this day, they have no idea what literature is about, or what the point of it is. Literature was not taught in a way that made it understandable, until the last generation, or so.
That high school education in the US is a dismal mess that largely fails at its job is not news. It is, however, due in large part to the devolution of college to job-ticket mills.
1). The economic system you espouse and cheerlead for has proved many times to be abjectly worse than what we have currently. Not to mention the piles of dead bodies too deep to reasonably quantify.
2). Everyone understands the differences between education and job training..........your comments above in that context are mostly indivisible, generally silly and largely disconnected from real life.
Not that you're talking to me, but nevertheless....
1.) Only if you cherry pick examples and conveniently ignore the current success stories and where America actually ranks on the world stage
2.) No, no they don't. Spend two seconds elsewhere in the education forum and you'll find people wondering why they have to learn such and such when they'll never use it again, or questioning why some degree didn't immediately land them the job of their choosing. They do not get it
I have a Ph.D in economics and am fully comfortable discussing Otto engines and related.
Your hang up regarding depreciation/obsolescence in the sense that you seem to think you understand something that economists do not is quite frankly sad and wholly misguided.
No, I am simply pointing out something that economists do not talk about to us peons.
How often do we hear GDP compared to NDP? 100 to 1? 1000 to 1?
Google results:
About 16,600,000 results (0.74 seconds)/About 182,000 results(0.69 seconds)
And then where is the explanation for why the depreciation of durable consumer goods is not part of the NDP equation?
Quote:
The net domestic product equals the gross domestic product minus depreciation on a country's capital goods. Net domestic product accounts for capital that has been consumed over the year in the form of housing, vehicle, or machinery deterioration.
So it comes down to think what you are told because the "experts" say so.
Isn't that just a middle school algebra problem? The durable consumer goods got added to GDP so why shouldn't it be subtracted when computing NDP? The "experts" have spoken. Believe the "experts". How often your car breaks down and you have to replace it is irrelevant.
So where is the data on how much American consumers have lost on the depreciation of automobiles each year since the Moon landing. Your sarcasm just cuts me to the quick.
If people are to be "educated" shouldn't they have the "right" to correct information with explanations?
No, I am simply pointing out something that economists do not talk about to us peons.
How often do we hear GDP compared to NDP? 100 to 1? 1000 to 1?
Google results:
About 16,600,000 results (0.74 seconds)/About 182,000 results(0.69 seconds)
And then where is the explanation for why the depreciation of durable consumer goods is not part of the NDP equation?
So it comes down to think what you are told because the "experts" say so.
Isn't that just a middle school algebra problem? The durable consumer goods got added to GDP so why shouldn't it be subtracted when computing NDP? The "experts" have spoken. Believe the "experts". How often your car breaks down and you have to replace it is irrelevant.
So where is the data on how much American consumers have lost on the depreciation of automobiles each year since the Moon landing. Your sarcasm just cuts me to the quick.
If people are to be "educated" shouldn't they have the "right" to correct information with explanations?
Education can be gotten without school. They sell certification that everyone "must" take seriously.
Make a Big Deal about Otto and ignore the GDP/NDP ratio. Is that too complicated?
As I mentioned you are making a big deal about something that every economist in first world understands and most everyone else too. Literally every freshman 101 macroeconomics class learns about GNP, GDP, NDP, PPP and a host of others. You are not on to anything.
An analog would be low information types complaining that U3 unemployment does not include discouraged workers and part timers who'd prefer to work full time. The only problem is U6 which includes those things and more is released every month along with U-3.
Not that you're talking to me, but nevertheless....
1.) Only if you cherry pick examples and conveniently ignore the current success stories and where America actually ranks on the world stage
2.) No, no they don't. Spend two seconds elsewhere in the education forum and you'll find people wondering why they have to learn such and such when they'll never use it again, or questioning why some degree didn't immediately land them the job of their choosing. They do not get it
1). Name the successes. In reality there are two, possibly three, and all are special cases that cannot be replicated. Unless you'd like to more or less eliminate many banking regulations or know where a hidden and exploitable mass quantity of oil is hidden somewhere in The US.
2). Regarding education vs. job training we simply disagree and you are veering way off course vis a vis what the other guy is claiming.
I believe proponents are fighting for enough funding to guarantee a seat in a public school classroom for any child, regardless of citizenship status, through the end of his or her compulsory education.
Born and raised in Rural NC. My family was fairly well off but public funding for schools was in bad shape.
I attended a district where teachers were limited to 3000 copies per year - teachers who needed less could "donate" to ones who needed more. There weren't enough books in core classes to provide one to each student. So we pushed desks together to follow along to a lesson. Homework was often brief, a worksheet or two per class, which I enjoyed.
I developed a good memory, perhaps because of this, perhaps not. But I feel I can learn quickly being shown something new only once. It's helped me in my career. Graduated high school in 2006 and practically immediately went to work full time (after "summer vacation") and attended community college at the same time. Got in my 2 years, ready to transfer to a university, but never pursued a 4 year program.
Community college 13 years ago was cheap, in my state. $742 to take 12 credit hours / semester. Books additional. Total with fees and materials maybe $1100 / semester. I'm not an advocate for student loans, at all, but if you are determined, and that is your only option, community college is a lot less expensive than starting as a freshman in a 4 year university.
I was unorthodox in many ways, but it turned out good for me avoiding debt and working 40 hours.
As I mentioned you are making a big deal about something that every economist in first world understands and most everyone else too. Literally every freshman 101 macroeconomics class learns about GNP, GDP, NDP, PPP and a host of others. You are not on to anything.
An analog would be low information types complaining that U3 unemployment does not include discouraged workers and part timers who'd prefer to work full time. The only problem is U6 which includes those things and more is released every month along with U-3.
I have had one person claiming to be a PhD economist say I was correct and the textbooks are wrong.
Another person claiming to teach economics said he would flunk any student who wrote Economic Wargames.
You toss out a lot of jargon that gives the impression that you know "Official Economic Theory" but you have said nothing about why GDP is used so much more than NDP or why the depreciation of durable consumer goods is ignored. In 1994 there were 200,000,000 cars in the US. At $1,500 of depreciation per car that would be $300,000,000,000 lost in depreciation per year. How many of the cars were capital goods?
What would that amount to for all of the cars for every year since the Moon landing?
That does not count all of the other durable consumer goods, like refrigerators, air-conditioners, televisions, etc., etc. So we are supposed to be impressed by PhD economists that have ignored all of that loss of wealth by depreciation for decades.
Shouldn't rights to education include complete and correct information?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
