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 : Mainstream Politics and Economics -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: koan who wrote (26606)	9/6/2012 1:16:52 PM
From: longnshort	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 85487

" We can educate the poor and get the same thing end result, plus the poor will become not poor-lol!" if we do that how many people will be above the average IQ level, in your opinion ?

To: koan who wrote (26606)	9/6/2012 1:35:47 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 85487

Education does correlate with income, and I've never suggest otherwise, but your incorrect when you say its a perfect correlation. So we do not need the rich. That's a pretty bizarre statement. And even if we got rid of the richest, those with the most wealth and/or income left would in turn be "the rich". We need people to strive to get rich, that drive produces vast amounts of wealth, mostly for people other the individual that's striving to get rich. If no one can get rich, then a lot of that striving goes away, so yes we need the rich. We can educate the poor and get the same thing end result Better education for those who are worst serve by the education system would be great, but even you yourself say its not "the only answer". Just educating people isn't enough to have a prosperous economy. And to the extent that better education is needed the best way to get it is to reform the education system, weaken the teacher's unions, and allow for more choice and competition, but I imagine you would oppose that. Also some of the benefit from education (esp. at the higher levels in non-technical subjects that have few jobs that really need the knowledge from the education) is signaling. If everyone presents the signal, they don't all get the benefit, they dilute that part of the benefit or eliminate it. Signaling is more a relative zero-sum game than an absolute positive sum game. Everyone benefits from being able to read and do basic math, that's mostly a benefit from the actual learning, and to the extent it provides a beneficial signal, its one we want the less fortunate to be able to present. But not all education, is primarily about information and understanding that's economically productive. (Not that learning that isn't directly economically useful is a bad thing, more knowledge is good, something I'd like to increase not decrease; but if it doesn't have a real economic return, then its more of a consumption good than an investment; and if it does provide a return to the individual through signaling, its an investment for the individual, but not one that has a positive economic result for society.).