Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Socialized Education - Is there abetter way? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (111)	1/31/2007 5:08:03 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1513

You're prepared to pay double what we are paying now to insure that competition? I see no reason to think the cost would be double. In the short run the transition might possibly increase the costs but not by that much. In the long run costs should go down. Why is doubling not sustainable? Because it takes up a greater and greater amount of resources, your talking a geometric progression. I suppose its sustainable if we have outstanding economic growth generation after generations, but at some point it become ridiculous even if its affordable, esp. if the results don't improve despite increase after increase after increase in education spending. If we got buy OK with X, and now a couple of generations later we spend 8 or 10X (per student, adjusted for inflation), the argument that the total amount of funds provided is inadequate is weak. The idea that moving to from 8-10, to say 10-12 would solve the problem is even weaker. It may appear weak to you but its the reality. Calling it reality doesn't make the argument any stronger, unless your expecting the world to go by the "Ted says its true so it must be" policy. Now it might be true without you being able to provide any good argument for it, just because you can't support your ideas doesn't make them false, but it does mean your going to have a hard time convincing people that you are right. Frankly, I don't think a doctor from the CDC cares what you think so he/she probably won't sit down with you and make the argument. Perhaps, but the mere statement (itself not supported) that a doctor from the CDC made an (unsupported) assertion hardly amounts to much of an argument for that assertion. I have no proof even that the statement was made. I have no exact quote, not data, not argument, just an assertion by you, that someone else made a (vague and unsupported) assertion. That essentially amounts to nothing as an argument. It gives no reason for anyone who doesn't already agree with you to change their mind, and no good reason for even people who do already agree with you to regard their opinion as confirmed.