Agree entirely, this is why its so tricky. We (markets) haven't found an optimal solution with scale to educating young persons. Semi-referencing Ari's points, the system is built to be socialized and offset from market forces. Problem is, it wasn't socialized enough.
-
-
Replying to @FluidFluxation @urbanarson and
So when you semi subsidize an (essential) service, you are providing it training wheels to compete in the markets. If the handicap is enough to offset market deterioration, your system will Clearly the US Edu model was not built with robust geopolitic competitiveness in mind.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @FluidFluxation @urbanarson and
So we took fair market forces out of the equation, and subsidized them with a short sighted socialized economic model. Either the government isn't doing enough for education, or it should pivot direction and do dramatically less whilst reopening fair market doors.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @FluidFluxation @urbanarson and
Not a clear stance in favor of either. Education is a tricky subject because we have so large (majority) of our parenting citizens that are incompetent, making bad decisions. I'm favor of a better national economic position that allows local flexible subsidies.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @FluidFluxation @urbanarson and
In the current climate, a hard pivot to true fair market hands off approach would be a disaster for the next generation, because the culture is acclimated to expectations.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
The government won’t choose a hard pivot. The choice will be made for them as they grow broke and are forced to spend less on education. The parents and kids who rise up in that environment will be the ones who decide the future of education, cheap and digital.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Agree, and have little/no fear for my kids, yours, or those who I cherish in my collective tribe. I also grew up around a lot of dirt poor rednecks, and my fair share of post-gentrified urban families. The market forced solution will WORK, but it may also be a great filtering.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Definitely a filter. Mistakes will have consequences again. “The code of competence is the only system of morality that is on a gold standard.” Rand
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
As sound theorist, which I believe we both are, to what extent is loss tolerable in a great filter scenario? 1% loss? 10? 25? 50? I have not reconciled my views here, am not sure where I stand. Self preservation, I'm sure I'll be .01% & fine. I worry for my peers.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @FluidFluxation @urbanarson and
I trend towards accelerationism on most counts, but Idk that my models tolerate a 20%+ drop in consumers. We are also addressing (semi privileged) poors in a wealthy country. This discussion doesn't begin to address "3rd world" economies.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
A mass filtering that kills 20% ignorant/poor/etc in America means multitudes more in China and India unless the filter policies are immensely localized (unlikely).
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.