Lots of room on the right of the Tories

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

Man I hope you are spoon-fed daily by your government, because we wouldn't want you to depend on private businesses to sell you food...because that would be so ridiculous.

I'm surprised complicated concepts like the one you guys are all arguing enough can be simply tucked into one sentence 'what ifs'. Sure I trust a company to make my food... mostly because the (relatively responsible)government, through regulation, supervision, and enforcement, helps hold the company accountable to make the food safe. In places where you have companies acting without much oversight from the government, scary things can happen (China pet food incident?).

YOU might trust the food because you trust the company, end of story, and couldn't imagine them ever selling you anything other than perfectly good food. I'd call that a bit naive, but I'm sure you beg to differ. I guess we all need different things to rely on when making choices. I personally find public officials more accountable than private ones. You hear about public scandals all the time where politicians are forced to resign... in the private world you can be almost as scanadalous as you want, the only person/group you're accountable to are the shareholders (if that).

[Cowboy89]

A lot of people are arguing in the theoretical realm where government acts altruistically and corporations act in favor in profit and everytime it's on the backs of the common good. Profit and common good are not always (or even in the majority intances) mutually exclusive. Ultimately politicians buy votes either with 'soft power' (non-monetary laws like crime and punishment) or with goods and services.

Politicians don't answer to the people as a whole, they answer to those who elected them during the lifetime in which they wish to be elected, (which in most first past the post electoral systems is 40% of the voting public (25% of the actual public) for a 4-8 year duration). So moving back to the Coca-Cola arguement about caring, a side effect of making a profit would be actually caring enough about your customers that they come back and continue to give you business long after said politician retires and/or fails to get re-elected. Now consider the fact that the Coca-Cola company boasts close to 40-45% of the population as customers pretty much anywhere in the world and has for generations. On the basis of satisfaction and safety who would you rather buy a soft drink from? Who has more of a vested interest in your satisfaction/safety in your drink? Who is able to provide it to you at a cost you're willing to pay repeatedly for?


Sorry 4X4, I must have not been around to defend your ground as you got tag-teamed by dippers.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

A lot of people are arguing in the theoretical realm where government acts altruistically and corporations act in favor in profit and everytime it's on the backs of the common good. Profit and common good are not always (or even in the majority intances) mutually exclusive. Ultimately politicians buy votes either with 'soft power' (non-monetary laws like crime and punishment) or with goods and services.

Politicians don't answer to the people as a whole, they answer to those who elected them during the lifetime in which they wish to be elected, (which in most first past the post electoral systems is 40% of the voting public (25% of the actual public) for a 4-8 year duration). So moving back to the Coca-Cola arguement about caring, a side effect of making a profit would be actually caring enough about your customers that they come back and continue to give you business long after said politician retires and/or fails to get re-elected. Now consider the fact that the Coca-Cola company boasts close to 40-45% of the population as customers pretty much anywhere in the world and has for generations. On the basis of satisfaction and safety who would you rather buy a soft drink from? Who has more of a vested interest in your satisfaction/safety in your drink? Who is able to provide it to you at a cost you're willing to pay repeatedly for?


Sorry 4X4, I must have not been around to defend your ground as you got tag-teamed by dippers.

Good lord.

The intentionally stupid question was posed in response to this specific comment:

Originally Posted by 4X4

I'm saying that I strongly disagree wioth the idea that the government somehow cares more than a corporation.

It was meant to prove a fairly simple point: that the school board (government) cares more about citizens (school children) than a corporation (Coca-Cola) does.

Do you disagree with this?

[troutman]

FYI (re: the cap on minor injuries):

http://www.actla.com/temp/ts_9D35FCB...ase-Aug071.pdf

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

WOW what a test

New one:

1. Who is concerned more about the education of the local children?

A) local private school
B) local public school

That's easy. The public one - because they don't look at how much money you have in your wallet before they admit your child into their school.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

That's easy. The public one - because they don't look at how much money you have in your wallet before they admit your child into their school.

True... but a point against the public... they aren't as concerned about the quality of education your individual child gets, or the conditions around them, more the education quality of the whole (with the exception of the top 10% and the bottom 10% because they are paid extra to supply programs to them).

On the other hand, a private school cares deeply about the individual student since they are expected to fulfill a service that is being paid handsomely for. Private schools would not exist if public schools were perceived to be doing an excellent job to the standards many people expect and desire.

Its not a black and white argument.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by fotze

Driving for cheap as a 16 year old is a basic human right, look it up at the UN if you want, just as everyone has the basic human right to cheap flammable fluids.

Good old Fotze...

No, its not a human right, but the allegation was price gouging against certain demographics, and it was proven correct.

That whole situation proved exactly what a government's job should be pertaining to the private sectors... a watchdog. Governments should only interfere with business when there is a visible misconduct at play that market functions and consumer sovereignty can't solve on their own. In Canada, this will happen a lot, since a lot of major industries are protected, essentially oligarchs, and/or have very limited competition.

However, sometimes people cry wolf too much about price gouging, like with gasoline, where its actually the government inflating the cost.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

True... but a point against the public... they aren't as concerned about the quality of education your individual child gets, or the conditions around them, more the education quality of the whole (with the exception of the top 10% and the bottom 10% because they are paid extra to supply programs to them).

On the other hand, a private school cares deeply about the individual student since they are expected to fulfill a service that is being paid handsomely for. Private schools would not exist if public schools were perceived to be doing an excellent job to the standards many people expect and desire.

Its not a black and white argument.

The question he asked does in fact have a pretty black and white answer. He asked his question and the way it was worded, I answered it accordingly.

If he had asked "Who provides the best education", the answer is easy, private schools. They hire/pay top dollars to the best teachers. Likewise the teachers probably do a better job because they are paid more money and would like to keep the job/benefits it entails.

He asked "Who is concerned more about the education of the local children?" - I think the one that provides as best they can for little to no cost (apart from fees), and to as many children that need it would be the one that is concerned the most about the "local" children. Private schools care about the education of the local children... if they can pay for it.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Good lord.

The intentionally stupid question was posed in response to this specific comment:



It was meant to prove a fairly simple point: that the school board (government) cares more about citizens (school children) than a corporation (Coca-Cola) does.

Do you disagree with this?

You're question was irrelevant.

A better question would be does a Private school care more about school children than the public school? and then ask subsequent questions like: Does a private school have a better incentive to more thouroughly educate it's students than a public school? If the answer to the second question is 'yes' then as a customer the first question becomes less relevant, because whether someone 'cares' or not (in your definition of the word 'Care') might have little impact on their ability to actually get the optimal job done better. The job of the government is to keep the motivations of private companies in line with 'doing the job' by drafting laws and enforcing regulations as opposed to actually performing the job inefficiently themselves.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

You're question was irrelevant.

If you insist.

I think I explained it fairly clearly. If you don't get the point now then there isn't anything else I can say.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

The question he asked does in fact have a pretty black and white answer. He asked his question and the way it was worded, I answered it accordingly.

If he had asked "Who provides the best education", the answer is easy, private schools. They hire/pay top dollars to the best teachers. Likewise the teachers probably do a better job because they are paid more money and would like to keep the job/benefits it entails.

He asked "Who is concerned more about the education of the local children?" - I think the one that provides as best they can for little to no cost (apart from fees), and to as many children that need it would be the one that is concerned the most about the "local" children. Private schools care about the education of the local children... if they can pay for it.

You're right... they "care" enough about the local children, to cram them into classes of 30+, to have the gym teacher incompetently teach french, to have laughable supervision and to generate lower test scores... essentially with every kid they cram in, they are reducing the quality of education for the whole. Is that caring?

I don't think ramming as many kids through an institution that fails to adequately prepare most students for post-secondary, trades or the workforce means they care. Sure, they don't turn anyone away, but is that benevolence, or because they are not allowed to turn anyone away.

I don't think one side "cares more." I think there's significant arguments against both sides.

As for your tax question... I would to a limit, but I would also want the right to pull my education tax from either system and divert it to the private school of my choice to offset the tuition.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

You're right... they "care" enough about the local children, to cram them into classes of 30+, to have the gym teacher incompetently teach french, to have laughable supervision and to generate lower test scores. I don't think ramming as many kids through an institution that fails to adequately prepare most students for post-secondary, trades or the workforce means they care. Sure, they don't turn anyone away, but is that benevolence, or because they are not allowed to turn anyone away.

I don't think one side "cares more." I think there's significant arguments against both sides.

Would you support increased taxes then? I'm sure some of the money would go towards education and new schools. I think the CBE does the best they can do with the money they are given. Part of the reason for the lower standard of education is because they are losing great teachers to private institutions because they cannot offer then the same kind of money private schools can.

So are you saying we should start turning kids away in order to keep classroom sizes down? Because that seems to be a little bit of what you are hinting at. Education is a universal right - and that has to be taken into account here.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

Good old Fotze...

No, its not a human right, but the allegation was price gouging against certain demographics, and it was proven correct.

That whole situation proved exactly what a government's job should be pertaining to the private sectors... a watchdog. Governments should only interfere with business when there is a visible misconduct at play that market functions and consumer sovereignty can't solve on their own. In Canada, this will happen a lot, since a lot of major industries are protected, essentially oligarchs, and/or have very limited competition.

However, sometimes people cry wolf too much about price gouging, like with gasoline, where its actually the government inflating the cost.

Actually interesting enough insurance companies would love to get their hands on more information that determines actual risk to paying out. The better they are at doing just that the more money they'd make as an insurance company and the more competative they are in the marketplace. However since many ways of classifying people are deemed socially unacceptable (Ie how would some react if insurance companies determined that 'Black drivers' had more risk than "Asian drivers" but less risk than "White Drivers,"?) Since discriminating against 16-24 year old males was seen as socially acceptable and oddly enough actually did represent the biggest risk group by far it was a nice place to park a lot of the other inefficiencies of not being able to properly assess risk in other groups. Another contributing factor is that insurance companies don't recieve a lot of business from 16-24 year old males as that demographic doesn't usually buy complementary inrusance products such as home and life insurance or even collision insurance as commonly they aren't driving new cars. This lead to higher and higher prices placed on that demographic.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

Would you support increased taxes then? I'm sure some of the money would go towards education and new schools. I think the CBE does the best they can do with the money they are given. Part of the reason for the lower standard of education is because they are losing great teachers to private institutions because they cannot offer then the same kind of money private schools can.

So are you saying we should start turning kids away in order to keep classroom sizes down? Because that seems to be a little bit of what you are hinting at. Education is a universal right - and that has to be taken into account here.

I'm not saying they should turn kids away... I'm hinting at the fact that they are simply fulfilling a mandate with no care for the individual children. Education is a universal right, so we have universal education. Cold hard logic. They overcrowd schools, underpay teachers (not that its their fault, but its the essential ruin of the public institution, as they tend to get ridden like rented mules to the extent that the end result is mediocre at best, like the healthcare system)... so the ones that can afford better go to a better source that pays their teachers something worthy of a professional with two degrees, and treats the children as people, not an assignment.

I'd also say that private schools have a more vested interest to be benevolent because people are paying them to provide a service. Public schools lack that vested interest. That's all I'm saying.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

Actually interesting enough insurance companies would love to get their hands on more information that determines actual risk to paying out. The better they are at doing just that the more money they'd make as an insurance company and the more competative they are in the marketplace. However since many ways of classifying people are deemed socially unacceptable (Ie how would some react if insurance companies determined that 'Black drivers' had more risk than "Asian drivers" but less risk than "White Drivers,"?) Since discriminating against 16-24 year old males was seen as socially acceptable and oddly enough actually did represent the biggest risk group by far it was a nice place to park a lot of the other inefficiencies of not being able to properly assess risk in other groups. Another contributing factor is that insurance companies don't recieve a lot of business from 16-24 year old males as that demographic doesn't usually buy complementary inrusance products such as home and life insurance or even collision insurance as commonly they aren't driving new cars. This lead to higher and higher prices placed on that demographic.

No arguments here. All I said is the government concluded this was lazy risk assessment and price gouging. This resulted in a much better and more egalitarian system being put in its place.

You're right though, if they could really get into demographics, people might not like the statistical racism that could come of it.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

If you insist.

I think I explained it fairly clearly. If you don't get the point now then there isn't anything else I can say.

Do public school lunch room aides have better moral grounding than Coca-Cola mail-room employees?

Are rank and file teachers more ethical than rank and file Coca-Cola accountants?

Whether an organization 'cares' more or not depends on it's mandate and it's motivation for existance which is predicated upon it's interaction with the public and not whether some well-meaning politician created it or not. Being borne out of government doesn't exactly give an organization better moral grounding than if it were a company seeking a profit. Government departments in Canada siphoned off millions of taxpayers money into the Liberal party. Did they 'care' more about the public than Coca-Cola?

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

No arguments here. All I said is the government concluded this was lazy risk assessment and price gouging. This resulted in a much better and more egalitarian system being put in its place.

You're right though, if they could really get into demographics, people might not like the statistical racism that could come of it.

Actually there's probably more waste in the system now. By significantly lowering the amount insurance companies have to pay out (Soft-tissue cap of $4000 per injury) the Insurance companies saved more than was passed on to the consumer. Sure the government set new pricing rules and the 16-24 crowd saved a bundle, but the older crowd saved much less than they're proportion attributed to risk (Just that no one complained because in most cases they too saw a modest reduction in what they were paying previously). In reality the whole excercise was essentially age and sex affirmative action.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

Actually there's probably more waste in the system now. By significantly lowering the amount insurance companies have to pay out (Soft-tissue cap of $4000 per injury) the Insurance companies saved more than was passed on to the consumer. Sure the government set new pricing rules and the 16-24 crowd saved a bundle, but the older crowd saved much less than they're proportion attributed to risk (Just that no one complained because in most cases they too saw a modest reduction in what they were paying previously). In reality the whole excercise was essentially age and sex affirmative action.

Which they would chalk up to the idea that they are allowed to make a profit too. At least now, no one is being gouged unless they did something individually to warrant it.

It was age and sex affirmative action... but I'm impressed that the government stepped in for that demographic. Had it been elderly women getting the screws, I think it would have been a very short lived policy. Because it was young men, they could get away with it, and point to foggy stats indicating they were in the most accidents.