Military Gear & Army Surplus Gear Blog

Investing in Schools Creates More Than Twice as Many Jobs as Military Spending

Investing in Schools Creates More Than Twice as Many Jobs as Military Spending

JAISAL NOOR: Welcome to The Real News Network.
I’m Jaisal Noor in Baltimore. And welcome to this week’s edition of The PERI Report. Now joining us is Bob Pollin. He’s the founder
and codirector of the PERI institute in Amherst, Massachusetts. His latest book is Back to
Full Employment. Thank you for joining us, Bob. ROBERT POLLIN: Thanks very much for having
me on. NOOR: So, Bob, the Labor Department just announced
that productivity growth is going to be weaker than expected, and some are going to argue
that this growth is temporary and that we need to focus on austerity measures. What’s
your response? POLLIN: My response is austerity was not the
right program a month ago, it wasn’t the right program six months ago, and it certainly isn’t
the right program today and into the future. As we’ve talked about in a lot of previous
instalments of this, we now know from our own research here in PERI that the single
most important piece of research in support of the austerity agenda, by Carmen Reinhart
and Kenneth Rogoff of Harvard, was wrong. It’s just wrong as a piece of research, this
notion that when government’s public debt exceeds 90 percent of the country’s GDP, that
we are going to experience precipitous declines in economic growth. Our own paper showed that
to be wrong, and so that the argument for austerity based on public debt coming up against
that threshold is no longer valid. Now, at the same time, we have other kinds
of evidence in both Europe and the United States now that also weakens the argument
for austerity. For example, we have the evidence from both the U.S. Social Security Trust Fund
and the Medicare Trust Fund that the finances in both cases are not facing the kind of dire
straits that have been described over and over and over again by the austerity hawks. So, for example, in the case of U.S. Social
Security, the security hawks have been arguing that Social Security is unsustainable. Even
the Obama administration itself has proposed this provision to reduce the cost-of-living
payments for Social Security through this so-called technical fix. What it really [incompr.]
cuts in Social Security, most especially for the long-term aged in the population. So the
arguments for that have weakened because we now know that the Social Security Trust Fund
is more solvent than previous estimates. On top of that, we have the case, the situation
in Europe where the European commission just last week announced that it was relaxing its
austerity conditions in some of its main member countries, such as France and Spain and Norway.
Why? Because the unemployment crisis is not going away. It’s stuck or getting worse. The
overall European Union, Eurozone unemployment is at 12.2 percent. It’s not going down. It’s
going up. So the arguments that austerity was somehow necessary because the debt levels
were too high or austerity was necessary because austerity could actually be a solution to
mass unemployment, those arguments have evaporated. Now the argument should be: we don’t believe
in austerity economics, so what are we going to put in its place? And what I would argue,
what we’ve discussed on The Real News on previous occasions, is a full-force program to fight
for employment, to fight mass unemployment, promote decent employment, higher wages, and
to invest in the public sector, invest in infrastructure, invest in the green economy,
invest in education. These are all good sources of job creation. These are all things that
are necessary. Of course, we heard about the collapse of the bridge in northern Washington
last week. You know, that was emblematic of the deterioration of our general basic public
infrastructure. So invest in infrastructure. You can’t lose by investing in infrastructure.
It raises productivity and it creates jobs. NOOR: Bob, so it’s good to hear that in Europe
the discussion is at least slightly moving away from austerity. But it seems like, as
you said, in the U.S. on a federal level and at a local level, you take a look at what’s
happening in public schools around the country, the idea is still you have to close these
schools down, let go of teachers. Why is that–this discussion, this revision of our justifications
for austerity, why hasn’t it come over to the U.S. yet on a local or federal level? POLLIN: Well, you know, the case in Europe
is still hovering. It’s not like the official government positions are, oh, we’ve given
up on austerity, now we’re going to promote expansion and target employment. What we’ve
seen, though, is a turning of the corner in that the European Commission has said, we
are going to temporarily relax the austerity conditions. So that’s just a turning of the
corner. Where are we in the U.S.? I think we might
be more or less in the same place, though we haven’t seen enough evidence. Yes. So what
we’re still seeing in the U.S., as you mentioned: we’re still seeing cuts in public education.
Now, this is bad on its own terms. Public education is a foundation of any democratic
society. And it’s also bad in terms of jobs. Spending on education is one of the best ways
to create jobs, and it’s maybe the best way insofar as we already have an infrastructure
in place called the system of public education at the state level, at the level local level.
And when you spend $1 million on education, you’re going to create 27 jobs. Compare that
with spending on the military. You spend $1 million in the military, you create 11 jobs.
So you create two and a half times more jobs per dollar of expenditure by investing in
education. And the most extensive system of education we have, obviously, is public education,
to say nothing of the good it does for the community and for young people to have a decent
public school in the community. So we must reverse this thinking that somehow
public education is a drag on economic well-being, that they need austerity in public education.
Quite the opposite. Even on strictly economic terms, on job creation terms, invest in education,
invest in public education. It’s the single best route to creating jobs right now. NOOR: Now, how much of the blame for this
can we lay at the feet of the Republicans, when in many cases you have the Obama administration
pushing these same policies on a federal level and places like in Chicago where you have
a Democratic mayor, Rahm Emanuel, doing the same exact thing, closing 50 public schools
this year? POLLIN: Yeah, I place the blame at least equally
with the Democrats, because, maybe naively, I would think the Democrats would know better.
Democrats historically have been the party of public education, have been the party of
Social Security, so they should be much less inclined to support these kind of cuts as
a matter of principle. Now we have evidence. The Social Security
Trust Fund has come up with its own evidence that the notion of a crisis in the Social
Security financing system is greatly diminished, if it ever existed at all. This is from the
Social Security Trust Fund. With respect to public education, I mean,
the fiscal deficit is coming down–too fast in my view. But in any case, if we want to
create jobs in the economy, you invest in education. Education, as I said, creates 29
jobs or 28 jobs per $1 million of expenditure. Military creates 11. So two and a half times
more jobs per dollar of expenditure. So why would we be cutting education now when we’re
trying to fight unemployment? The answer is: we shouldn’t. And the Democrats should be
the ones standing up fighting for that. In fact, as you said, for example, in Chicago
we’re still talking about closing schools. We shouldn’t be closing schools. We should
be expanding schools. We should be improving schools. It should be a cornerstone of the
recovery. NOOR: What’s it going to take the change the
conversation here? POLLIN: Well, you know, the problem, I think,
as you indicate, really lies in large measure with the Democrats. The Republicans are not
going to change their line. They want to see Obama embarrassed. They want to–in 2014 election,
they want to say Obama’s a failure, we can’t toss out [inaud.] let’s toss out governors,
state governments, and move our right-wing agenda forward. The Democrats shouldn’t be trying to meet
the Republicans halfway or three-quarters of the way. They should be arguing for a full-employment
agenda focused on investing in education, investing in the green economy, investing
in infrastructure. They should be heralding the findings that austerity economics is wrong
on its own terms. They shouldn’t be saying, well, you know, let’s soften the austerity
agenda. Now, in Europe, that’s where we are. The austerity
economics is now at the point where they’re saying, let’s soften the austerity agenda.
And that’s probably going to be the first step that we see emerging out of the Democrats.
But what we really need is step two, which is full-force austerity economics is bad.
I don’t think that there are a lot of Democrats that will argue that. There are some, of course–Bernie
Sanders has been very forceful on this and Keith Ellison in the House of Representatives
and a few others. But we have to reverse the logic. We’ve got a long way to go. NOOR: Thanks for joining us, Bob. POLLIN: Thank you very much for having me. NOOR: And thank you for joining us on The
Real News Network.

Reader Comments

  1. You shouldn't see education as part of a economy because life is not only about saving.making money,creating jobs and a teacher is not just an ordinary job.It's not even a job.Education is the single most important factor in the development of a country.Everyone (good or bad student,poor or rich,talented or not),should have free access to education.And education targetting to create free people,not educated slaves for companies.

  2. The rich are replacing everyone with machines… they don't need any more educated working folk. What they need… is a class of cannon fodder and human cum receptacles. They'll need men to slaughter each other for their amusement and profits and they'll need to fuck an army of helpless, consumaholic fuck dolls. To do this they will need MORE military spending, and FEWER schools. It's really a win-win situation, for them. Hey, hate the message not the messenger. Oh and go get killed of fucked!

  3. Education is the Answer, that's why they don't invest in it, becuase a better prepared and smarter society claims for a better system and services, and an ignorant society is defeated easily.

  4. Wrong. Teachers get those pensions not as some extra luxury, but as a way of compensating low pay.

    Teachers, like most public sector employees, are paid less in wages than workers in the private sector with comparable education and experience. They make up much of this gap with a better benefit package, including better pension benefits, than workers in the private sector receive.

    The data shows your belief that teachers have "bloated salaries" to be wrong.

  5. Teachers aren't overpaid, and the only reason they get a pension is because teachers (like most public sector employees) are paid less in wages than workers in the private sector with comparable education and experience.

    Don't talk without knowing. You U.S. "libertarians" are truly desperate to the point where you like attacking teachers, firemen, librarians, etc. The population will not stand for your nonsense (which is a big reason why U.S. "libertarians" don't like real democracy).

  6. Nice try trying to put the military in the same level as public education. It's a typical right-wing tactic.

    The U.S. military is a force that dominates the world through violence and destruction (and domination). It gets a ton of money, and it has a ton of political power.

    Public Education on the other hand works get give a free education to the population, but it's very underfunded, and most of the money goes to private corporations for overpriced textbooks, test, lesson plans, etc.

  7. The TEACHER is a TREAT and a TERRORIST to any nation, he is no different that a solider holding a gun to a child head. do has i tell you,or you will never make it through this life. Do it, you want a bullet,do it ,you want a Non-GED to jail? The teacher, i use to kick rock and they nut sack after school. during the lovely 80`s.

  8. No. It did me well because that "government education" taught me that I should always look at the numbers before jumping to conclusions.

    For example, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor statistics, taking inflation into account, the wages of state and local employees grew 0.6% annually from 1990 to 2010, while that rate was 0.7% for private sectors workers. Considering that 54% of public sector workers have a degree, we should have seen their rates go higher, but it did not.

  9. neoLiberal/'libertarian' conservatives, market (sales) hype, deregulated finance 80s.
    Bankers sold unpayable loans & credit cards to the population.
    People gave capitalist banks their savings for fraudulent junk = massive 1% bonuses.

    Capitalists sold off industry, forcing people into debt with private, as collecting interest made way more profit (GDP scam).
    AKA myopic "rent seeking".. see J. Stiglitz.
    .01% (capitalist) literally have all the money.

    See Pyramid of Capitalism image on Google.

  10. You never responded to the facts. The wages of state and local employees grew 0.6% annually from 1990 to 2010, while that rate was 0.7% for private sectors workers. In the public sector, 54% of workers have degrees (compared to 35% in the private sector), yet public sector workers didn't see better wages increases. This is in contrast to the whole belief that public sector workers are "overpaid".

    I love how you U.S. "libertarians" ignore math and statistics.

  11. I never conflated the two. Of all things I was showing how they're not even in the same level, yet U.S. "libertarians" seriously believe that public education is some "tyranny" to the level of the violent military. That's beyond loony.

    Most of the problems in the education system are the private leeches (like "education" corporations) that get huge subsidies for doing things any dept within a school can do (quite like the private company leeches in our healthcare system), and student SES.

  12. Are Rahm and Barack progressives? Then Democrats seriously believe that public education is some "tyranny"

  13. Rahm and Barack Obama are center-right (and so is 95% of the Democratic party). They are in the front line of this war against public education, as they've been the biggest supporters of charter schools (which are just private schools fully funded with public money WHICH have shown no to be any better than regular public schools).

  14. There is corruption anywhere, but that doesn't mean you eliminate the program entirely, or you hand the public service over to private tyrannies.

  15. No. You make it better and more democratic (you know democracy……..something you U.S. "libertarians" hate). You don't get rid of it.

    Getting rid of it is basically the same as handing it over to private tyrannies (those filthy rich fellas you U.S. "libertarians" worship). That's basically the model they have in Colombia. In Colombia, most kids don't learn anything, the majority of people are dirt poor, and since guns are everywhere, people are shooting each other left and right.

  16. Wow. I always knew U.S. "libertarians" were pretty hateful, but WOW. This takes the cake.

    You basically want us to become a third world country don't you???

  17. You didn't read everything, nor did you understand a thing.

    The only reason they have decent benefits is to compensate for their low pay (since for their education and experience, they should be getting paid better as the number clearly show).

    And I wouldn't call getting the right to see a doctor benefits that "went to the moon".

    You U.S. "libertarians" are truly wacky.

  18. Public unions don't negotiate how that money is spent. That power is in the hands of local mayors and governors. Unions have zero say in how the money is spent.

    Charter schools have already been found to be no better than public schools. That's been proven.

    As for 100% private schools, the only reason it's better is because higher socioeconomic-status (SES) students attend it. SES is the biggest indicator of student success above EVERYTHING.

  19. Well since you love the public (or the non-unionized workers) so much, then please go advocate for a significant minimum wage increase and a single-payer healthcare system instead of attacking the few unions left in existence.

    Oh wait….I forgot. You worship private power, who intentionally keeps wages as low as possible, who fights minimum wage increases, and who fights against us having a national healthcare system like every other industrialized country in the world.

  20. So teachers, councilors, social workers are a "tyranny" to you.

    Good luck trying to convince the public on that one buddy….

  21. I 100% agree about the drug war. It is the biggest reason for the violence in the urban areas.

    But unlike you, I know how to make distinctions about what certain government programs are, and what they are not.

    Public education isn't a tyranny. The war on drugs is.

    And union don't control schools. Governors, mayors, and business elements who control them control schools. Unions just fight these elements in order to make schools better for the 99% (and not the !% who you worship).

  22. I never said U.S. "libertarians" are rich. I said they worship the rich.

    Again, you want to see U.S. "libertarianism" in action, I invite you to go to Colombia one day and see their economy in the cities. Good luck not getting shot or kidnapped.

  23. I not only want students to learn as much math and science as possible (which I never implied should be eliminated), but I want them to be cultured and to get to know many other things outside of those 2 IMPORTANT topics. It's as important to human education as everything else (you know….human emotions…that thing Ayn Rand taught you to hate).

  24. I never implied kids shouldn't know math and science and writing, etc. They shouldn't be left out of all the other important programs as well, such as art, music, gym (working out or playing ball in a gym in the middle of the day helps big time for a student), etc.

    And it's hilarious how you consider the parents "worthless". Again, good luck trying to sell your ideas to the public.

    And what in the world are you referring to when you say "giving them Ipads, and free backpacks"????

  25. "And what in the world are you referring to when you say 'giving them Ipads…'"

    I'm not sure of the exact details, but I know that Apple gave iPads to a number of schools and school districts around the world. My school district happened to be one of these. While it was a cool experience there were some issues. One of them was that within the first month of the program about 50 iPads had "vanished" (I heard that a lot got sold/stolen).

  26. You're blind if you cannot see the corruption in unions. I feel bad for the hard-working members who are getting shorthanded by their leaders.

  27. Well FUCK your republic. I'm fighting for DEMOCRACY.

    The founding fathers FEARED democracy, which is why they wrote the constitution and created our system of government. The reason the founding fathers feared democracy was because at that time, THEY were the elites. OBVIOUSLY any elites are going to fear democracy.

    I'm not fighting in the interest of elites (like you are). I'm fighting in the interest of the 99% (the majority of the population). I'm fighting for democracy (something you hate)

  28. Sex ed is basically the same. They teach about STDs, probabilities of getting them, how you get them, etc.

    You sounds like a right-wing nutjob.

  29. I agree to an extent. In many unions, there is a "top-down" leadership that tends to keep the members away. But even that corrupt leadership is WAY MORE of a friend to the workers in compared to the CEOs (who U.S. "libertarians" worship).

    OF course I advocate the people taking back their unions from that leadership like they recently did in Chicago for the teacher's union, and bring unions back to what there were in the beginning of the 20th century.

  30. It's student socio-economic-status that affects students the most (which is independent of schools themselves).

    The economy (thanks to de-regulation of the banks back in the 90's) sank big time due to the housing bubble. Real wages have either stayed the same or gone down since 1979. All that is going to create more poor kids, and it will bring down the performance of schools REGARDLESS of "reforms".

    Of course the right-wing doesn't want you to know that, because it means fixing the economy.

  31. By accepting lower pay and pensions to make up for it, it costs the taxpayer zero (meaning the tax payer doesn't pay extra for a pension since it's just compensation for what that person regularly gets paid in the private sector).

    Do you even understand math????

  32. So social programs, studies that go into specific important topics (like women's studies, ethnic studies, etc) are a part of a police state?!?!?!?!???


  33. Do you really think Rahm and Barack are center-right? If you do then you must think that Genghis Kahn was center-left.

  34. Obama and Rahm are center-right. They are not part of the left.

    The left doesn't go around making cuts to social programs. Obama and Rahm have (and they tried before for even more but Occupy kind of stopped them).

    The left doesn't go intensify wars and commit atrocities overseas. Obama does.

    The left doesn't try to destroy worker unions through policies that destroys the public arena in order to fool the population into privatizing. Obama and Rahm do.

    They're center-right.

  35. The government functions mainly for the rich, but not solely (well that depends on the participation of the population). The population has fought hard to get a few crumbs out of the government (social security, medicare, health safety standards, civil rights, public education, etc).

    I don't just go by the logic of IF GOVT = BAD. The few crumbs we WON from the state are things to defend. The thing is, you US "libertarians" love attacking OUR victories, even more than you attack private power.

  36. I know that. Also Amazon supports certain taxes because it kills competition. I know private power uses the state. Without it, they wouldn't exist (which is why I want the state eliminated, and for democracy to happen….but you hate democracy).

    Minimum wage was a victory WON by workers and the population back in the days when the people you worship (the rich) had everyone working as slaves. It is something to be defended for now, even if a sector of private power happens to benefit from it.

  37. There would be no debate on it because it wouldn't be in the possible control of the population. It would be in the hands of unaccountable un-democratic private tyrannies.

    I want there to be debates in the public arena of public institutions. It's democratic if the population involves itself.

    But I forgot….you U.S. "libertarians" HATE democracy. And it's no secret why you all hate real democracy, because you know that in a democracy, the population would never accept rule from any elites.

  38. She doesn't have to take a class. Who in the world is forcing her??

    And I always knew U.S. "libertarians" were border-line racists (heck, their idol Ron Paul supported a ton of racist nutjobs, and he's borderline racist himself). I'm glad you wrote your comment: "In the bs colleges the blacks learn to hate their past and whitey is the villain."

    Well the fact the we want to teach people history in order for us to be a more civilized society does offend you. Well keep being offended by it. 🙂

  39. Guy you could create jobs by starting a program for paying ppl to dig and fill in holes. Or create full employment by outlawing computers.

    We'd all be POORER for both programs just as the USSR & China had full employment but ever decreasing lifestyle.

    It's the direct VALUE a job brings to another individual willing to pay money for it that makes it worth while.

    Assuming value on someone else's behalf has been what's been screwing everything up. Until this is learned it will just get worse.

  40. bootleg, sometimes you sink down to the same idiocy as RedState's freedom fries crowd.

    I know far more deeply racist progressives than I do libertarians. And I know plenty of both. Making sweeping generalization on groups of people based on genetics is just as arrogent as one based on idealogy.

    Congrats, you've shown you can be just as irrational as the KKK.

  41. indeed those are the next steps they plan, also the transhuman agenda to convert us in the perfect slave and depopulate the world, Carlos Slim (second richest man) united forces with Gates now :O
    the bright side it's look Turkey, Spain, those are good examples of what should be doing, power is with the people, we're the sleeping giant, we´re 7 billions against 300 crazy satanics, do the maths 🙂

  42. I was going to inform you that there is at least one leftist who is not a "murdering Marxist", but looking at your use of racial insults in your other post, I know you're just a waste of time.

    Good luck with being a hateful damn fool.

    Oh, and vaccines are a godsend.

  43. I'm actually not a fan of most sports. If others are and want to pay for that, I'm also not going to tell them they can't. So on your assumption, I think you just got a strike.

  44. Defending the rich aren't you??? The Founding Fathers were the rich elite of the day (not to mention they were white rich slave owning males). OF COURSE THEY WERE GOING TO FEAR DEMOCRACY, BECAUSE ANY REAL DEMOCRACY WOULD STRIP THEM OF THEIR PRIVILEGES (of which they had more than plenty). And you defend them!?!?!?!??

    I'm not going to worship elites (like you do).

    And the U.S. isn't near insolvent. You U.S. "libertarians" are loons.

  45. Then you are not true libertarian. Real Libertarians (Anarchists/Anti-Leninist Socialists) do not accept illegitimate authority. Any real libertarian anywhere else in the world opposes the tyranny of the businessman. You guys worship it.

    In the U.S., the word "libertarian" has the opposite meaning of what it means everywhere else in the world. The word libertarian really means Anarchist (Michael Bakunin). In the U.S., the word libertarian means worshiping rich people.

  46. The math already shows that the pensions costs the taxpayer zero, because the pensions just make up for low pay relative to education level and experience.

    What you said is gibberish. I forgot that U.S. "libertarians" hate math (that is assuming they even know it).

  47. None of that is a result of a democracy. In fact, that's the result of your precious republic. In fact, that's the result of the ideology that a certain sector of society must rule over all of us (which is exactly what the founding fathers wanted…..which in reality is no different than Leninism, because both the founding fathers and Lenin feared real democracy, both thought that only a special group of people should rule, and both feared the population).

  48. I'm no liberal you idiot. I'm an anarchist, and a supporter of real democracy.

    And Obama with 40k plate dinners and the such is the result of the system your precious founding fathers established (who were filthy rich 200+ years ago with slaves, etc).

  49. All those victories have been under attack by business. Why do you think Lloyd Blankfein is dying to cut Social Security, and why do you think wall st billionaire Pete Peterson is using the debt as an excuse to trick the population into cutting Social Security and Medicare?? That's an all out attack on the population's small victories.

    Wait….notice how U.S. "libertarian" agendas seem so similar to agendas of Lloyd Blankfein and the such……

  50. Hell no. According to the polls, the majority of the population wants the defense budget cut based on moral reasons (not that it costs too much).

    That defense budget (imperialism) was the result of the system your precious founding fathers established (they liked a powerful military, and they were very imperialist).

  51. First, the U.S. is no where near broke. As much as I'm no defender of power, with-in this current state-capitalist system the last thing the U.S. government is is broke (hint hint, why is it after every crisis that the filthy rich pour their money into U.S. treasuries??).

    Second, again you're calling many sorts of poor and working people "worthless scumbags". Gladly, the population doesn't want to live in a world full of hate like you do.

  52. Again, I'm not a liberal. Don't insult me by calling me a liberal.

    But we should learn all of history, including the domination of elites over various populations (which your precious founding fathers were very much a part of).

  53. Union don't get most of school money.

    The ones who get most of the school money are private "education" corporations like Mcgraw Hill and Pearson. (again, the corporations you worship).

  54. No. The ones who bankrupted the economy where Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Bank of America, Citigroup, etc. Not teacher unions who have little to no power (especially compared to those banks I mentioned).

    Are you seriously going to tell me that an organized group of school teachers are more powerful than multi-trillionaire bankers and their major corporations???

  55. You just hate me because I stated the fact the the founding fathers were elites of their days (rich white slave owning males) who ruled over the population with their power, and who set up a system that basically ensures that the filthy rich always dominate everyone else.

    And I also showed how U.S. "libertarians" think democracy is immoral (again, I'm glad people can read it).

    I challenged the authority you worship. That's why you hate me.

  56. Really?? So teaching girls that they shouldn't allow themselves to be dominated by males, and teaching people about various cultures and roots within our own society "allowed our politicians to bring us into a police state."??

    And the filthy rich, Wal-Mart, Exxon, Chevron, Phillips 66, Berkshire Hathaway, Apple, GM, GE, Valero Energy, Bank of America, JP Morgan, Citigroup, Well Fargo, Microsoft, Pfizer, Conoco Phillips, Johnson & Johnson, etc pale in comparison to ethinic/women studies??

  57. I'm sure there are plenty of liberals who are racist as hell.

    But the statements by David West were borderline racist, and it's something that is very common by the internet U.S. "libertarians" (not all, but many).

  58. Show me the math that shows Social Security is bankrupted (that is assuming you know math). If not, then you're just repeating right-wing talking points.

  59. The money spent on poverty (the little of it because compared to money spent on handouts to private power and the military, money to help the poor is small) worked well. That's why we're a developed society.

    Compare that to Colombia, who pretty much followed most U.S. "libertarian" policies. The majority of the population there lives very poor. It's hilarious that such policies are the ones you want for the U.S..

    It truly brings me the lulz.

  60. If you knew how to read, you'd realize that I said that we don't live in a democracy, but that I'm fighting for us to live in a real democracy.

    And the rest of your rhetoric is hilarious. This isn't Alex Jones's channel.

    Don't foget your tin foil hat.

  61. Though I'm no defender of "progressives" (since I am an Anarchist), compared to the countries that followed U.S. "libertarian" policies (like Colombia), those "progressive" policies gave us a developed 1st world economy.

    U.S. "libertarian" policies produce third world countries (see Latin America in the 80's and 90's).

  62. Again, who says we're eliminating math?? Sex ed is important.

    And I wouldn't talk if I were a U.S. "libertarian" about math. Their analysis of currently existing state-capitalism is void of any math, and when they're presented with math, they can't answer back.

  63. Privatizing it only allows private corporations to choose what we learn and don't learn.

    Of course that's a tyranny you support.

  64. 'The Democrats should …' – the Democrats should disband, along with the Republicans. That's what they should do. No more Business Party.

  65. No. Where in the world are you getting that idea.

    I hate McGraw Hill and Pearson. They're just getting public money to do something that any group of teachers can do by themselves with simple pen and paper.

  66. See Latin America in the 80's and 90's. See the Eastern European countries like Estonia and Latvia in the 90's. These areas followed economic U.S. "libertarian" policies and turned out 3rd world countries.

  67. A big reason a teacher isn't able to do that is because they would be fired if they did that.

    They would have also have been fired if they did that in private school.

  68. All math. Most of their analysis of our current state-capitalist economy is always way off. You guys have been promoting the idea that a dollar collapse is close for 25 years saying "it's coming its coming!!!" and yet the dollar gets stronger. You guys claim that there is a debt crisis, yet every time series analysis shows our interest payments-to-GDP ratio never getting to dangerous levels. You guys claim gold is a safe haven, yet every chart shows treasuries and stocks being inverses, etc.

  69. What?!?!?!?

    Wow. I knew U.S. "libertarians" were pretty much full of hate but wow.

    Nice way to insult teachers. I'm REALLY glad people can read this now.

  70. They were third world countries because they followed U.S. "libertarian" policies, while the U.S./Western Europe/Japan did the complete opposite. The U.S./Western Europe/Japan today have 1st world economies, and all those other countries who followed U.S. "libertarian" economic policies are still living poor, even while having most of the earth's natural resources (in compared to developed countries which barely have any….that's quite revealing).

  71. Yet you U.S. "libertarians" are pushing for the exact same policies as Blankfein (cutting Social Security/Medicare/social programs and keeping inflation low).

    Yes how foolish of me to describe capitalism as it actually exists and has always existed as opposed to your particular utopian fantasy of how you think it ought to.

  72. If that's correct (which I partly agree with) then you don't go looking to hand over teachers and schools to private power, which will just bring us all an education brought to you by (fill in name of a corporation here).

    Instead, you look to keep the schools in the public arena, and you look to give teacher's and student's and communities more control over education policy so that you can challenge anything you disagree with curriculum-wise.

  73. Then after union leadership is hung, then actual workers of the union can take back their union to go back to what unions should be doing in this country (like they used to do 80-100 years ago), fighting private power.

  74. Teachers can't teach any other curriculum other than what the higher ups (the city or state they live in) tell them too. If they teach anything else, they get fired (mainly because now the fake "education reformists" want test scores over everything). That's the point I'm making. Even if you privatized the schools, it would still be the same, only that a Wall St rep will be the one determining the curriculum.

    If you care about schools, you have the teachers and community making curriculum.

  75. You said, "but mankind is greedy and wants to manipulate through politcal action and bribery. That isn't capitalism."

    Isn't the whole point of capitalism based on greed and the benefits of pursing that greed????

    Again, pardon me for describing capitalism as it actually exists and has always existed as opposed to your particular utopian fantasy of how you think it ought to.

  76. Again, treasuries and stocks are practical inverses. Have you bothered to read the charts (yes I know….math can be tough for U.S. "libertarians", but charts aren't too difficult)????

    If the dollar isn't strong, then I wonder what our trade deficit is, and I wonder why demand for the dollar is sky high….

    I'm not defending the state's money, but I'm just making the point of how wrong U.S. "libertarians" tend to be when analyzing our current state-capitalist economy.

  77. Again, hilarious that U.S. "libertarians" don't like investing in schools.

    So I guess they ignore the education systems that have been turning out scientists and engineers (like Finland or even China) that actually invest in education. Not that I'm a defender of those states, but they invest in education, and they reap rewards.

    3rd world countries who follow US "libertarian" policies don't produce anywhere near the amount of scientists and the such as compared to the other states who invest.

  78. You said, "The students get the shaft and the public union thugs reap the benefits."

    I love the way you U.S. "libertarians" love trying to act like unions are a problem. You all never mention private "education corporations who suck up public money to basically do nothing at all (quite like private healthcare corporations). You never mention the billionaire mayors (like in NYC) who basically has done terrible things for schools.

    You won't fool the majority of viewers here.

  79. I already showed earlier (with math…something you U.S. "libertarians" hate..that is assuming you know it) how public sector workers (who have more people with degree than in the private sector) gained less as compared to people in the private sector, which implies they're underpaid, which is compensated via pensions (meaning it costs the taxpayer ZERO). Your statement of how unions are a huge financial problem for the taxpayer is FALSE.

  80. The country is not going bankrupt, and if it was, it was thanks to the bubble economy which was the result of de-regulation during the Clinton years.

    You don't understand math and arguments (nor state-capitalist economics). So I'll try in multiple posts to explain:

  81. 1) In our current state-capitalist system, people who have degrees generally should earn more than people without degrees, and people with degrees should see better gains over long periods of years. 54% of public sector workers have degrees, while only 35% of private sector workers. Yet from 1990-2010 adjusting for inflation, the wages of public sector workers only grew 0.6% annually, in compared to 0.7% for private sector workers. This implies they're underpaid.

  82. 2) Given that college graduates have seen faster-than-average wage growth in recent decades, we would expect the college graduate-intensive state/local sector to have faster wage growth, but that clearly has not happened. This ratio still didn’t result in a wage-growth advantage for public-sector employees in the 1990-2010 period. Furthermore, it is noteworthy that workers in both sectors saw their pay grow far more slowly than the economy’s 2.5% annual productivity growth.

  83. 3) The total growth of inflation-adjusted wages for high school educated workers in the private sector between 1989 and 2010 was 4.8%, slightly faster than the 2.6% wage growth for comparable public employees. For those with a bachelor’s degree (but no further education), inflation-adjusted wages grew by 19.5% in the private sector from 1989 to 2010, FAR MORE than the 9.5% growth seen by state employees.

  84. 4) Now with all that we see that 1), 2), and 3) clearly implies that public sector workers are underpaid. In order to make up for them being underpaid, they are given good pensions. This costs the taxpayer no extra money, because the pensions are just compensation for low pay relative to education of the worker.

    You U.S. "libertarians" should really go to sleep, it's late.

  85. Pensions are a way to compensate for low pay (you never responded to the math I showed you huh??). It was a trade off the unions accepted in negotiations with states for lower wages. I know you U.S. "libertarians" hate math. The pensions allows public sector workers to get compensation to reach the level of private sector workers in terms of compensation for work.

    And responding to your "2.", private people have had the taxpayer to bail them out…see then entire financial sector in 2008.

  86. I'm an anarchist you idiot.

    And when did "I" take "chances with the funds" and lost?? What in the world are you talking about???

    The only ones who gambled were Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, Bank of America, JP Morgan, Well Fargo, PNC Bank, etc. You don't know we had a housing bubble the last decade which popped in 2007 which caused the U.S. to lose $1.3 trillion in annual demand (be careful….there's math again…), which caused a downturn in the economy????

  87. Again, did you bother reading the numbers (that is assuming you understand the concept of numbers…..jeez, you U.S. "libertarians" serious need to learn math)????

    And health costs are (and will be) a big problem, because we have private healthcare companies that get subsidized.

    By the way, (WARNING……here comes more math….) if we had a health system like any other industrialized country on earth with longer life expectancy than us, then we actually end up with a budget surplus.

  88. I propose real democracy (where the population participates and decides on policy via democratic consensus).

    And pension fund didn't make any state broke. It was the lost demand (which results in lower tax revenues) from the housing bubble that lowered state budgets.

    That housing bubble was caused by the major banks when Clinton and company de-regulated banks.

  89. I agree that Obamacare is a gift (more subsidizes) to private health insurance companies. That's why I propose single-payer healthcare, which is what (more or less) every other industrialized country has.

    Again, if we had a healthcare system like any other of those 1st world countries, we wouldn't have any deficits, and we'd have a surplus.

  90. Pensions did not cause the housing bubble. You seriously have zero idea of what you're talking about. Typical of U.S. "libertarians".

  91. that's a 3rd world healthcare system.

    Sorry buddy. Western and Northern Europe, Japan, Australia, South Korea all spend WAY LESS than the current U.S. system does, and they all have way better life expectancies.

    If we adopted any of those systems I listed, we not only get everyone healthcare and lower costs, but we end up with a budget surplus (and any long term projection worries go away). That's math. Ask and I'll show you.

  92. You said, "3rd world works a lot better than the piece of shit we have now".

    Really?????? 3rd world countries have lower life expectancies, and most people die of preventable things. You say it's better than here?!?!!?

    Single payer cuts costs. Doctors can still live good, because in a sane single payer system, their costs go down (like med school tuition). All those countries did it.

    Single payer saves lives, hurts the insurance companies, and it practically eliminates the country's debt.

  93. Obama care makes it so insurance companies have to spend much more money on people. It ain't no gift for them. It's a gift to the people.

  94. Obama's health plan still has a ton of flaws. Insurance companies still get a ton of subsidizes. Remember, big pharma was huge in the writing of Obama's health plan.

    Any sane human being advocates for a single-payer public system (like what the rest of the industrialized first world countries have). This way, there is no middle-men private companies leeching off of tax dollars, costs go down, "for-profit" health goes away, and everyone gets healthcare

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *