Hmm. Where do I start?

1. "The last time that education was in the hands of pure supply and demand, the rich got richer and the poor were stuck in dead-end jobs." And the poor now are...?

2. The way to get out of a dead-end job is to be more productive. To have skills that others value and are willing to pay for. In an industrial economy, where the skills are those of repetitive motion and the same quality every time, schools can provide those skills. They can get you to memorize the formula and apply it. And they can do it over and over.

But we don't live in that world anymore. We live in a world where productivity varies with the individual's ability to innovate, to create, to think for himself/herself. Where to be productive (and to get something other than a dead end job) you need higher order skills. Skills like daily collaboration and trade, like project management, like synthesizing information AND ways of thinking about information. Skills that modern educational institutions and systems are fucking lousy at providing for all but maybe 3 percent of the population.

3. "Free thinkers and revolution." Free thinkers, yes; revolution, no. Revolution is an industrial world idea. It's as outdated as majoritarianism. Revolution is about forming a movement, about finding an alternate way to fit people into conforming boxes. We don't need revolutionaries, we need innovators and creators and people who think independently.

4. "Making you an accountant." Schools can make you a bookkeeper, but only you can make you an accountant. Schools can teach you how to distinguish between assets and expenses, to do journal entries and balance sheet, to use Excel and Quickbooks. That's bookkeeping.

What they can't do, or at least do without great difficulty and cost, is develop your judgment as an accountant. The ability to know how to project cash flows, to interpret return on investment, to audit and monitor for problems. Only you can develop those skills through practice and experience and being mentored.

3. Doing it for 1670 euros. You're absolutely right that such a piddling sum wouldn't hire a teacher. And doesn't. But the dollars that "government" spend to pay for that teacher don't come out of thin air. They come from taxpayers of various sorts. What makes the government better at spending money on education than those taxpayers choosing freely to spend their money however they wish?

To be sure, if you stopped taxing and let people spend their money on whatever they want, a lot of them would spend it on something other than subsidizing education. I don't deny that.

But what makes you think they'd waste *more* than the current education spenders do? What makes you think the people who spend our taxes are better at spending decisions than the rest of us?

4. "Rich getting richer, etc." The biggest check on the rich keeping control is not trying to tax/steal their money from them. It's having them bear the consequences of their bad choices.

One of the reasons so many of the old manorial estates in Europe are owned by businessmen isn't because the businessmen have been the rich getting richer. It's because the prior owners squandered their wealth in gambling, bad investments, and conspicuous consumption, whereas the businessmen focused on increasing productivity and providing goods and services that others valued enough to pay for.

The rich, they will always be with us. The question is not "how do we get equality". The question is how do we decide what garners greater wealth and power and what does not. Me, I'd give it to them that's providing more value to others and to them who takes risks with their own wealth.

Not to those who can only do by coercing others to pay for their good intentions.

---

Here is a simplistic view to the opposition of education for all.. if you don't force people to start, many will put off education all together.

Personally, rural schools in my opinion as still very effective overall. It is the urban portions of the country where the education system is failing in its currently makeup and policies in much the way digs described it above. There are kids in those systems that want to learn.. and should be given the right to be taught.. but sooner or later you have to kick those that don't want to learn.

But there within lies the problem, we are a country built on the ideal of being the land of equal opportunity and equality for each citizen.

So how do you make decisions for others all the while pleading for less governmental control? And have it remain fair and equal for those effected?

I have said it before.. I personally leave a ton of income on the table yearly because I refuse to put my kids into the large systems that are failing.. I will remain in the rural life with less income potential and cultural interest that I have, until the kids have graduated from school in a system I trust.

---

I like the idea of instead of bashing the guys that bust their balls to get their wealth, we give them a big 'thanks' for doing far more than their part in filling the Governments pockets.

You broke ass bastards (VR, DakotaT, etc.) would do good to take note. 🙂

---

But this is the whole point, isn't it?

If we wouldn't pay taxes and let people spend them on whatever they want, I wouldn't have made it through high school. Couldn't possibly afford it. If there was no subsidy, the costs would be through the roof. And to be honest, I can't even manage to scrape those 1.670,- together without the government giving me another subsidy in study financing.

So, really, the chances of succeeding would be horribly small for anyone living below upper class standards.

Having skills is great, but at this point in time, you'll get into a small amount of decent jobs without any sort of education. IT might be the big exception, since it's still rather new. For instance, two of the brightest people I know. Both started university a time or 3, but dropped out every single time. Just weren't putting the effort it. They can be as smart as they want and apply for as many jobs as they want, but neither have been able to go anywhere.

Well, that's a lie, one's leading a team of 16-20 year olds in a supermarket. The other one's also leading the 28 year old who leads thos kids.

Seriously, you're absolutely nowhere without a college diploma these days.

And that's not saying that you can't be succesful. There's always a few succes stories. I reckon that also depends on your definition of success. I know, though, that the less fortunate people, living on welfare checks, far outweigh the Donald Trumps.