NationStates Jolt Archive

If you want to learn why countries are doing what they are doing, take a history course. If you want to learn why computers function the way they function, take a computer engineering course. However, none of these are necessary to be a productive and informed member of society; all you need to know is what countries are doing and how to use a computer. I could care less about Japan-North Korea relations dating back to 1945; I simply need to know how the two countries feel about each other today.

You don't need to know why countries are doing what they are doing to vote? This shows why you vote the way you do.

And logic is based largely on history, and observation of past reactions towards similar events.

No, it's most certainly not.

So the point of our history education is to better prepare us for making jokes in the ghetto? :eek:

The point of one's education is whatever one makes (or does not make) of it. Might be jokes to create crosscultural levity, might be justification for genocide. In this matter, John Donne was bang-on wrong.

Actually, they counted for 3/5 of a person. Does knowing that actually help me in day-to-day life? Of course not!

Huh. You see, there are many racists today. These racists sometimes like to use the original wording of the Constitution, and the intent of the Founding Fathers, to justify said racism.

It's not farfetched, I've been in heated discussion where this has been brought up.

Without intimate knowledge of our changing world, one cannot argue worth a damn, to be put bluntly.

No, it's most certainly not.

Refute it. Seriously. Our logic is based very much on it. If we do not observe how one something comes to a conclusion, then there is no logical inference. To know the outcome without knowing the process is not logical, infact it is illogical, as there is no basis for the inference.

Huh. You see, there are many racists today. These racists sometimes like to use the original wording of the Constitution, and the intent of the Founding Fathers, to justify said racism.

It's not farfetched, I've been in heated discussion where this has been brought up.

Without intimate knowledge of our changing world, one cannot argue worth a damn, to be put bluntly.

Look whose leading the vote in biggest NS troll... MTEA yeehaw


http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=505852

For too long, the curriculum in our schools has been dominated by a liberal agenda. In elementary, middle, and high school, we are forced to learn such inconsequential topics like history and literature, art and music. These classes will not equip the future generation to find jobs, contribute to the economy, or manage their money wisely, yet they are mandatory in many areas. They should be replaced with more constructive courses, such as investment techniques, personal finance, etc. The primary function of schooling is not to cram students full of useless knowledge but to prepare them for entry into the workforce. Knowing who the 17th president of the US was or what the central themes of various novels are. If you are going to be a historian or a writer, such classes may benefit you; otherwise, they are a waste of your time. On the other hand, economic and finance courses will have a positive effect on all of us, because such skills are prerequisites to being successful after graduation. All of us must know how to best manage our money, how to invest, etc. Thus, a reform of the educational system is in order and the quaint liberal topics must be tossed out the window and other, more necessary, topics must take their place. Such improvement have a global benefit which extends to all Americans -- it will alleviate the burden of poverty by fighting its root causes and will speed up economic growth, which has been lagging lately. Our school system must be updated and revitalized to take into account the modern world.

You are simply the stupidest person on the internet. Any one who agrees please say, Here Here!

It is necessary so that there cannot be tyranny by a few people.

Why is tyranny by a few people a bad thing?

No, it's most certainly not.

still waiting for you to refute my statistics on mental illnsess and homelessness YOU ASKED FOR earlier. I'm used to you running away when you are defeated with your tail between your pompous legs. History of the world is important into learning about your current world. The struggle of Islam against the Western forces didnt start in WW2. Have you ever read "1000 years" in regard to terrorism? It has no "liberal" ideology in it as I am not a liberal, nor are most of the people you like to place your labels on. In Islam there is no need to win "right now." The struggle is eternal and if it takes 1000 years to pevail than so be it. But hell, let's just learn about WW2 and beyond to be "educated." You're still a TROLL and winning in the votes.

You are simply the stupidest person on the internet. Any one who agrees please say, Here Here!

Here Here, but I'll say most stupid to be grammatically correct.:mp5:

[QUOTE=MeansToAnEnd;11907787]No, it's not, as anyone who has taken an economics course will realize. You cannot disprove a system of government through history; only through logic.QUOTE]

Ummm, I'm not so sure about that. You can ask any economics guru and they will tell you that in an on-paper economic only sense, communisam is the perfect government. That's because on paper it is. The problem is that history shows that it's terrible. I want to know what person who took an economics class told you that. You won't be able to because no one did. You made it up. Again.

~snip MTAE post~
Well, I dont like having to take a fine arts credit to graduate. I cant draw, act, play an interstment or sing. And we have no shop, so I have to take Theatre Tech, which is basically shop junior. However, the idea to take history out is absurd. Then USA would be without culture, and that would be a very bad thing.

Actually, they counted for 3/5 of a person. Does knowing that actually help me in day-to-day life? Of course not!

6% difference, who cares?

6% difference, who cares?

The losing side of the elections. :p

Oh, wait, this is slaves in pop count? Oops...

~snip MTAE post~
Well, I dont like having to take a fine arts credit to graduate. I cant draw, act, play an interstment or sing. And we have no shop, so I have to take Theatre Tech, which is basically shop junior. However, the idea to take history out is absurd. Then USA would be without culture, and that would be a very bad thing.

Yes, it would. History, the arts, and so forth give an identity to the people. Without Culture, there is nothing holding people together. This is just as important as any economic idea, as without a sense culture, people grow restless with one another. If people cannot identify themselves with others, they alienated from one another.

As well, culture gives entertainment. Without entertainment, the people grow restless with that culture. When people are unhappy with the situation, the outcome is rarely ever beneficial, as history has shown. An entertained people is a content, and stable, people.

Also, almost all military strategies(to put it to something that MTAE would care about, which isn't much as it grows apparent) are based upon past successes and failures. Without intimate knowledge as to why you fail in a battle, you cannot change said strategy to a more beneficial one.

Look at the massive differences between WWI and WWII for an instance of this, and WWII to now.

For too long, the curriculum in our schools has been dominated by a liberal agenda. In elementary, middle, and high school, we are forced to learn such inconsequential topics like history and literature, art and music. These classes will not equip the future generation to find jobs, contribute to the economy, or manage their money wisely, yet they are mandatory in many areas. They should be replaced with more constructive courses, such as investment techniques, personal finance, etc. The primary function of schooling is not to cram students full of useless knowledge but to prepare them for entry into the workforce. Knowing who the 17th president of the US was or what the central themes of various novels are. If you are going to be a historian or a writer, such classes may benefit you; otherwise, they are a waste of your time. On the other hand, economic and finance courses will have a positive effect on all of us, because such skills are prerequisites to being successful after graduation. All of us must know how to best manage our money, how to invest, etc. Thus, a reform of the educational system is in order and the quaint liberal topics must be tossed out the window and other, more necessary, topics must take their place. Such improvement have a global benefit which extends to all Americans -- it will alleviate the burden of poverty by fighting its root causes and will speed up economic growth, which has been lagging lately. Our school system must be updated and revitalized to take into account the modern world.

Uh-oh, I sort of agree with MTAE.

I hate standardized public school systems and would like to see them all abolished, but if there were one, I would like to see it tend only to more practical and technical courses. School schedules would of course be cut back to allow students to follow other scholastic pursuits on their own.

I would like to point out that economics are about as worthless as art, so to speak, probably more so.

The only reason economists exist is to correct the screw ups of past economists. It is a self-perpetuating field.

Ummm, I'm not so sure about that. You can ask any economics guru and they will tell you that in an on-paper economic only sense, communisam is the perfect government. That's because on paper it is. The problem is that history shows that it's terrible. I want to know what person who took an economics class told you that. You won't be able to because no one did. You made it up. Again.
No, they actually won't. Economics gurus will likely tell you that communism does not work due to horrible incentive structures and the impossibility of creating rational price structures with millions of good that all have to be priced relative to each other. Communism sucks on paper and there are economic explanations derived from theory about why it doesn't work.

For too long, the curriculum in our schools has been dominated by a liberal agenda. In elementary, middle, and high school, we are forced to learn such inconsequential topics like history and literature, art and music. These classes will not equip the future generation to find jobs, contribute to the economy, or manage their money wisely, yet they are mandatory in many areas. They should be replaced with more constructive courses, such as investment techniques, personal finance, etc. The primary function of schooling is not to cram students full of useless knowledge but to prepare them for entry into the workforce. Knowing who the 17th president of the US was or what the central themes of various novels are. If you are going to be a historian or a writer, such classes may benefit you; otherwise, they are a waste of your time. On the other hand, economic and finance courses will have a positive effect on all of us, because such skills are prerequisites to being successful after graduation. All of us must know how to best manage our money, how to invest, etc. Thus, a reform of the educational system is in order and the quaint liberal topics must be tossed out the window and other, more necessary, topics must take their place. Such improvement have a global benefit which extends to all Americans -- it will alleviate the burden of poverty by fighting its root causes and will speed up economic growth, which has been lagging lately. Our school system must be updated and revitalized to take into account the modern world.


In one respect, I agree. Art is a waste of time. However, without knowlege of how to read and write, you cannot be effective in society, therefore English and Literature are a necessity. History (my personal favorite) is absolutely critical, as without it, we are doomed to repeat past mistakes, and no progress will be possible. The future is influenced by the past, the past makes the future.

No, they actually won't. Economics gurus will likely tell you that communism does not work due to horrible incentive structures and the impossibility of creating rational price structures with millions of good that all have to be priced relative to each other. Communism sucks on paper and there are economic explanations derived from theory about why it doesn't work.

Eh, technically under Communism there is no money, and no price structure, but that is beside the point I guess.

No, they actually won't. Economics gurus will likely tell you that communism does not work due to horrible incentive structures and the impossibility of creating rational price structures with millions of good that all have to be priced relative to each other. Communism sucks on paper and there are economic explanations derived from theory about why it doesn't work.


You're thinking of Socialism my friend.

Eh, technically under Communism there is no money, and no price structure, but that is beside the point I guess.
Technically that version of communism cannot work due to the complexity of a modern economy. Price structures and money are necessary for exchanges to reflect the different desires of individuals. Communism can work alright in hippie communes as the information is easy to deal with on that level but if we have a few million people and a few million different products then we run into significant problems.

You're thinking of Socialism my friend.
The communism referred to by the poster I quoted is likely to be socialism by your definition as that is the only "communism" referred to by most high school history books.

Technically that version of communism cannot work due to the complexity of a modern economy. Price structures and money are necessary for exchanges to reflect the different desires of individuals. Communism can work alright in hippie communes as the information is easy to deal with on that level but if we have a few million people and a few million different products then we run into significant problems.

Not "hippy communes", but small societies of people number no larger than a few hundred. Communism works well, especially, in "traditional" societies as a system of great stability, but little growth. It ensures survival of the group, but not growth. The reason why it can only work on a small scale is that if populations are to large, concerns are different due to environment. If the concerns are different, then value is different for different items and such. In a small group, all of the concerns tend to be quite similar, thus is why it works.

Communism is a very naturalistic system(one which all of our ancestors employed at some point, and some group of people still use to this day), however it does not promote growth at all. The problem comes in when trying to introduce a capitalistic system to these people, which may "modernize" them, but often times has many adverse affects, such as poverty(whereas before they may have led a simple, albeit relatively comfortable life), starvation, and instability.

The !Kung, for example, are a great example of this. Up until about 10 years ago, they were a tribe of nomads in southern africa. They were able to survive for several reasons, one of which was largely due to their system of sharing food and an almost completely egalitarian society. They shared resources among one another, and survived quite well, gathering food only about 2.5 hours a day, with the rest left to leisure activities. Skip forward to the early 1990's, when they were forced to enter the capitalistic system, they are now poor, forced to live in towns working for low wages that barely scrap by.

So, from well fed, comfortable and stable(albeit "primitive" to some), to starving, poor, and no longer a stable unit all due to this change of system.

Communism works if a group wishes for stability, capitalism for growth(Growth doesn't mean necessarily beneficial, in the !Kung's case especially).

Hence why I stated "modern economies". What you stated was pretty much what I referred to as "hippie communes" as you spoke of small groups without much growth and development. Pretty much communism works if you want to consign yourself off to primitivism and capitalism works to rise above that.

No, I only advocate compassionate slavery. That is, the quality of life of the people who are to be sold into slavery should be increased by such a programme. A life of empty slavery would be something I could never condone; I would only be a proponent of a happy, brainwashed one.

All slavery is empty by it's very nature.

Hence why I stated "modern economies". What you stated was pretty much what I referred to as "hippie communes" as you spoke of small groups without much growth and development. Pretty much communism works if you want to consign yourself off to primitivism and capitalism works to rise above that.

Ah, however Capitalism promotes disperity and creates poverty. Communism has neither.

The !Kung were not hyppies, they were a tribal group of people. There is a huge difference. They lived their life not because of ideaology, but because they like it. It was a simple, and effective, system which provided for everything they wanted and needed. Capitalism, thusfar, has yet to come even close for them.

Neither system is better. They work completely different, and provide for completely different interests.

The !Kung wanted to remain "primitive", but were forced in the capitalist system due to laws and such regarding the land which they lived on. After this, the people of the tribes experienced great poverty, wheares before they were rather comfortable with thier lifestyle.

There is no good reason for it that I know of.
Then you cannot be invloved in the debate about if we should keep it or not, as you don't know where or why we have it, we just have it, so therefore it MUST be good!

This is why we study history, so that we can refute the ideas of any idiot coming down the pike speaking of slavery and tests needed to vote.

Ah, however Capitalism promotes disperity and creates poverty. Communism has neither.Yes, but primitivism is not what I would consider an ideal society and a group that I could kill off with a modern shotgun without much threat seems to me to be inferior from a power perspective.

The !Kung were not hyppies, they were a tribal group of people. There is a huge difference. They lived their life not because of ideaology, but because they like it. It was a simple, and effective, system which provided for everything they wanted and needed. Capitalism, thusfar, has yet to come even close for them.
Yeah, ok, I really don't care about anthropology and the !Kung. I know that they are not hippies, however, that is a term I was using to show my distaste for a people that are primitive by choice. I see that type of choice to be a form of barbarism, certainly I may respect the right to make such choices but I do not respect it. Capitalism provides a system for cultivating the higher aspects of humanity considering all of the great things that growth brings, tribal communes keep men in a perpetually backward state.

Neither system is better. They work completely different, and provide for completely different interests. I disagree, I'd say that capitalism is clearly better because growth is an important value value. To be unwilling to sacrifice for growth is akin to accepting life as a pig. I would whole heartedly agree with this statement here: "It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied".

The !Kung wanted to remain "primitive", but were forced in the capitalist system due to laws and such regarding the land which they lived on. After this, the people of the tribes experienced great poverty, wheares before they were rather comfortable with thier lifestyle.
Which is no surprise, when people remain weak and do not grow then they quickly do become subject to the whims of other peoples.

For too long, the curriculum in our schools has been dominated by a liberal agenda. In elementary, middle, and high school, we are forced to learn such inconsequential topics like history and literature, art and music. These classes will not equip the future generation to find jobs, contribute to the economy, or manage their money wisely, yet they are mandatory in many areas. They should be replaced with more constructive courses, such as investment techniques, personal finance, etc. The primary function of schooling is not to cram students full of useless knowledge but to prepare them for entry into the workforce. Knowing who the 17th president of the US was or what the central themes of various novels are. If you are going to be a historian or a writer, such classes may benefit you; otherwise, they are a waste of your time. On the other hand, economic and finance courses will have a positive effect on all of us, because such skills are prerequisites to being successful after graduation. All of us must know how to best manage our money, how to invest, etc. Thus, a reform of the educational system is in order and the quaint liberal topics must be tossed out the window and other, more necessary, topics must take their place. Such improvement have a global benefit which extends to all Americans -- it will alleviate the burden of poverty by fighting its root causes and will speed up economic growth, which has been lagging lately. Our school system must be updated and revitalized to take into account the modern world.

Look! It's conservativism incarnate! Kneel, ye gullible, and quake, ye halfwits!

Yes, but primitivism is not what I would consider an ideal society and a group that I could kill off with a modern shotgun without much threat seems to me to be inferior from a power perspective.

Yeah, ok, I really don't care about anthropology and the !Kung. I know that they are not hippies, however, that is a term I was using to show my distaste for a people that are primitive by choice. I see that type of choice to be a form of barbarism, certainly I may respect the right to make such choices but I do not respect it. Capitalism provides a system for cultivating the higher aspects of humanity considering all of the great things that growth brings, tribal communes keep men in a perpetually backward state.
I disagree, I'd say that capitalism is clearly better because growth is an important value value. To be unwilling to sacrifice for growth is akin to accepting life as a pig. I would whole heartedly agree with this statement here: "It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied".

Which is no surprise, when people remain weak and do not grow then they quickly do become subject to the whims of other peoples.

All of which spoken like a true believer in Mother Culture.

Yes, but primitivism is not what I would consider an ideal society and a group that I could kill off with a modern shotgun without much threat seems to me to be inferior from a power perspective.

Key word-You. You do not, others may rather prefer a primitive lifestyle. That doesn't mean their system is bad, just that they prefer it. It's simpler, it tends to be easier. Also, your claim is that Might makes Right. So, basically, because Hitler was able to crush the jews easily meant he was right in killing them. Might does not make right, infact the opposite is often true.


Yeah, ok, I really don't care about anthropology and the !Kung. I know that they are not hippies, however, that is a term I was using to show my distaste for a people that are primitive by choice. I see that type of choice to be a form of barbarism, certainly I may respect the right to make such choices but I do not respect it. Capitalism provides a system for cultivating the higher aspects of humanity considering all of the great things that growth brings, tribal communes keep men in a perpetually backward state.
I disagree, I'd say that capitalism is clearly better because growth is an important value value. To be unwilling to sacrifice for growth is akin to accepting life as a pig. I would whole heartedly agree with this statement here: "It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied".

Growth is important to those who find it important. The !Kung did not. They felt that the stability of the group far outweighed the "growth". This is an important aspect. Just because it is not the system which you deem as "good", does not mean it is wrong. It simply means you prefer a different system. On, if to bring a phylosophical point into this, none of the growth really matters. In the grand scheme, what importance do any "advances" play? Humans have been around for a short while, and have existed to this state largely due to the stability of these groups of people. Communistic socieites can survive far longer than capitalistic societies due to their great stability. It's not that these people were unwilling to sacrifice for growth, they didn't want to. They liked their life. It was simple, it was easy, it was what they wanted. You follow your system because it is what you like.


Which is no surprise, when people remain weak and do not grow then they quickly do become subject to the whims of other peoples.
So you are asserting might makes right. Gotchya. Those with the strongest military should be able to force everyone else in teh world to do exactly what they want. And the point to what I said was that introducing them to capitalism pretty much killed them, and removed them from a comfortable lifestyle to very low quality lifestyle.

All of which spoken like a true believer in Mother Culture.

Also known as cultural elitism.

Maybe MTAE is simply a contrarian. It would explain how he gets off on arguing with all of us. Not even the most right of the US (and to be fair, certain elements found on the left) would agree with a third of what he comes up with. We argue with him, he gets a strange undeserved feeling of superiority and then stops for the night when its time to clean his screen from all the spunk.

All of which spoken like a true believer in Mother Culture.
Yay! Someone else who has read Ishmael!

Wow, that is straight outta Ma Culture's mouth...

We're already a nation of philistines. If education is emphasizing culture, it isn’t doing it very well.

Yay! Someone else who has read Ishmael!

Wow, that is straight outta Ma Culture's mouth...

Read & based much of my nation on the tenets.

We're already a nation of philistines. If education is emphasizing culture, it isn’t doing it very well.
Well, education emphasizes culture, but MTV kinda whitewashes that over...

Key word-You. You do not, others may rather prefer a primitive lifestyle. That doesn't mean their system is bad, just that they prefer it. It's simpler, it tends to be easier. Also, your claim is that Might makes Right. So, basically, because Hitler was able to crush the jews easily meant he was right in killing them. Might does not make right, infact the opposite is often true. Others may, however, through such acts they most certainly weaken it. As well, Might does mean control. I will not argue about moral justification because we cannot pin down what morality truly is, however, being easily victim to my might is not indicative of an effective system as it is very weak to outside forces.

Growth is important to those who find it important. The !Kung did not. They felt that the stability of the group far outweighed the "growth". This is an important aspect. Just because it is not the system which you deem as "good", does not mean it is wrong. It simply means you prefer a different system. On, if to bring a phylosophical point into this, none of the growth really matters. In the grand scheme, what importance do any "advances" play? Humans have been around for a short while, and have existed to this state largely due to the stability of these groups of people. Communistic socieites can survive far longer than capitalistic societies due to their great stability. It's not that these people were unwilling to sacrifice for growth, they didn't want to. They liked their life. It was simple, it was easy, it was what they wanted. You follow your system because it is what you like. Growth is important, without growth there can only be decline, some external force destroyed the !Kung because they never adapted and improved. Advances, which do not really need the quotes, mean a greater standard of living for most, and a greater understanding of the world in which these people live. The !Kung have nothing and are nothing, they created no great knowledge and did very little in this world of ours. Communistic societies do not exist beyond contact with greater societies though, which the !Kung illustrate as well as most of our history. Since these contacts are inevitable one cannot say that Communism really provides that great of an alternative.


So you are asserting might makes right. Gotchya. Those with the strongest military should be able to force everyone else in teh world to do exactly what they want. And the point to what I said was that introducing them to capitalism pretty much killed them, and removed them from a comfortable lifestyle to very low quality lifestyle.
Might is a part of reality. I am not asserting the morality of might, only that in all assessments we cannot forget the power of outside forces in causing decisions to be made. What killed them was their inability to adapt though, the !Kung may have been forced by those mightier than themselves into where they are but such was inevitable. If they had begun adaptations on their own then they may have been able to stop the inevitable change or do better in this new society.
Also known as cultural elitism. Some cultures have better ideas than other cultures. The stronger cultures tend to dominate due to their strengths. My own culture may not be the strongest but it does have good tendencies such as a comparatively high focus on growth and learning.

We're already a nation of philistines. If education is emphasizing culture, it isn’t doing it very well.
What kind of culture would be ideally emphasized? Do you mean a respect for literature based on the virtue of its age and the opinions of some lit professors, or do you mean work ethic and civil virtues?

What kind of culture would be ideally emphasized? Do you mean a respect for literature based on the virtue of its age and the opinions of some lit professors, or do you mean work ethic and civil virtues?

There is plenty of literature being read in high school that has more to show than just age. Recent examples include Empire Falls, Life of Pi, Things They Carried, Curious Incident of the Dog at Nighttime, Motherless Brooklyn, Enders Game, Kite Runner... need it go on?

Economics is no more liberal than mathematics. It is a completely objective science, but one that has the potential to help the entire world.

Nope. Economics is a tool of the liberal hegemony.

You have shown your liberal roots, and liberal bias, with your appeal to this most liberal of the liberal arts.

Nope. Economics is a tool of the liberal hegemony.

In one sense yes, in the sense its the alternative to war as a hegamonic tool (and arguably is more sucessful).

But other than that, it is objective (unless you can demonstrate how it isnt)

There is plenty of literature being read in high school that has more to show than just age. Recent examples include Empire Falls, Life of Pi, Things They Carried, Curious Incident of the Dog at Nighttime, Motherless Brooklyn, Enders Game, Kite Runner... need it go on?
No, I really don't care. In this case it is only the latter rather than the former and the latter that are responsible. My point was that what we consider "cultural" is sort of arbitrary. Frankly, I might prefer Harry Potter for my reading and pop music to listen to. I may not be a vision of high culture for making those choices, but why on earth does that really matter?

In one sense yes, in the sense its the alternative to war as a hegamonic tool (and arguably is more sucessful).

But other than that, it is objective (unless you can demonstrate how it isnt)

'Economics' is abstract. It deals with the study of something that has no real world application, except through the most indirect of roots.

'Money' is not something that has an intrinsic worth - it is purely representational... it says "This is how much of a thing of value I have the EQUIVALENT of".

As such, it is no different to painting, for example - which says "this is what flowers look like to me", or poetry, which says "I am sad and unhappy, and this is how...".

Money is a metaphor, and to construct a 'science' around it is to build a house of cards - it actually multiplies the 'error' in the assumption of an intrinsic value, by continuing to extrapolate rules and responses from something that was symbolic to begin with.

Economics as as scientific as astrology... and (at least) as 'liberal' as any other 'liberal art'.

Economics is no more liberal than mathematics. It is a completely objective science, but one that has the potential to help the entire world.Economics is a branch of philosphy that managed to become powerful enough to stand on its own. As for objectivity, the homo economicus is a model functioning on the same principles that population ecology works with.

MeansToAnEnd

The arts are a foundation of our culture.

Without music, art or literature you undermine the foundations of our culture.

When you undermine the foundations of a culture you weaken it.

You weaken it because you do not value it.

When your culture is weak and undervalued other cultures compete with it and brush it aside.

It seems MTAE wants to weaken our culture and devalue it so it is easier for Islamic Fundamentalists to take over.

MTAE - Why do you hate America?

How our system of government functions is a modern issue, whereas why it was constructed the way it was is irrelevant. The situation between modern countries is relevant, while the reasons leading to them are tangential to that. As for the issue of US troops being stationed in Japan: why are they there? Because of what Japan did in the past? Well, that's not a valid argument anymore.

you say that how the government was contructed and why are not important. Please expound or are we just suposed to take your word for it?

'Economics' is abstract. It deals with the study of something that has no real world application, except through the most indirect of roots.

'Money' is not something that has an intrinsic worth - it is purely representational... it says "This is how much of a thing of value I have the EQUIVALENT of".

As such, it is no different to painting, for example - which says "this is what flowers look like to me", or poetry, which says "I am sad and unhappy, and this is how...".

Money is a metaphor, and to construct a 'science' around it is to build a house of cards - it actually multiplies the 'error' in the assumption of an intrinsic value, by continuing to extrapolate rules and responses from something that was symbolic to begin with.

Economics as as scientific as astrology... and (at least) as 'liberal' as any other 'liberal art'.
Economics is the reality of human actions. It is hardly indirectly related to how we live our lives considering that it is at the heart of so many political concerns.

Money isn't something of intrinsic worth, it is simply a medium of exchange and economists KNOW that. This does not mean that money can be ignored due to its "falseness", after all, you'd be an idiot to argue that money supply doesn't matter or that inflation and deflation do not matter. Because it is a medium of exchange and vastly important to economic matters it is important. The amount of money available is vastly important to economic matters and what we do with it affects the nature of all exchanges, I mean, you have heard of monetarism?

We are not constructing a science around money in the first place, money is simply a part of the manner in which we distribute the material goods within a society. Economists study other aspects of the economy though and it isn't all about money per se but rather about how we can keep the economy, something important to most voters, afloat and doing well and the effects of things such as regulations, externalities, incentives, etc.

Economics is a step above astrology and to state that the 2 are the same is a sign of massive idiocy or a complete lack of understanding. Economists study what happens with incentives, trade-offs, and such and do so using empirical studies and rigorous mathematical analysis, which is starkly different from astrologers. The reason why it might not be considered as liberal as the other liberal arts is because econ and business are related, and as such in order to study business one needs some background in econ.

MeansToAnEnd

The arts are a foundation of our culture.

Without music, art or literature you undermine the foundations of our culture.

When you undermine the foundations of a culture you weaken it.

You weaken it because you do not value it.

When your culture is weak and undervalued other cultures compete with it and brush it aside.

It seems MTAE wants to weaken our culture and devalue it so it is easier for Islamic Fundamentalists to take over.

MTAE - Why do you hate America?
This is idiocy. Arts do not have to be taught in school to exist, unless you really think that a firm understanding of Shakespeare is central to enjoying the average movie(No, it isn't many people do not understand shakespeare but enjoy movies). Without school-taught music we still have garage bands and musicians still make CDs, without literature taught in schools we still have Harry Potter, and without art we still have comics. Frankly, unless you can demonstrate the superiority of the school taught creation compared to what the masses enjoy on their own and demand on their own, you have no argument. Culture is not a creation of the schools.

Because everyone can benefit from such a course. Many poor people are in poverty because they never learned how to manage money well -- I want to help them. Don't you?

No, many people living in poverty are there for a multitude of reasons, the most prevelant being mental illness at 20-25% I've already proven that in a previous post but you've chosen to ignore it as usual. Yet you still assert that most people are there because they never learn how to manage monery well. I have proven you wrong with empirical information and you chose to keep repeating the same innacuracy because you're a troll and that's what trolls do. So please present information to support your claim other than "because I say so." I've done so and feel you need to do teh same in order to eb taken seriosuly and not marked a troll. By the way, you're still winning the troll award on another thread. :mp5: :headbang:

When your culture is weak and undervalued other cultures compete with it and brush it aside.

A "culture" is an outdated concept in this modern day and age. It is simply another instrument which allows people to form arbitrary divisions based on traditions. Islamic fundamentalism would never take over in a society without culture because it is an irrational, illogical, crazy culture. Claiming that it will usurp the national culture is like claiming that rabid Christianity will replace athiesm in a country which is not religious, when that is so clearly false. That is not to say that we shouldn't have a culture -- however, we should not be forced to participate in the creation and perpetuation of one. People can express their culture however they please -- if they wish to write, they can take a class in literature. If they wish to record music, they can take such a class. What would really go against our culture of freedom would be coercing them into taking such a course. You're the one who "hates" America by that logic.

This is idiocy. Arts do not have to be taught in school to exist, unless you really think that a firm understanding of Shakespeare is central to enjoying the average movie(No, it isn't many people do not understand shakespeare but enjoy movies). Without school-taught music we still have garage bands and musicians still make CDs, without literature taught in schools we still have Harry Potter, and without art we still have comics. Frankly, unless you can demonstrate the superiority of the school taught creation compared to what the masses enjoy on their own and demand on their own, you have no argument. Culture is not a creation of the schools.

We do have school taught music.
We do have literature taught in school
We do have art taught in school.

Not sure what you're getting at since we do have all those things...

School taught arts reinforce culture and encourage creativity. Driving such courses out of schools removes the reinforcement, devalues the culture ("it's so worthless you don't even need to learn about it") and stamps on artistic creativity.

A "culture" is an outdated concept in this modern day and age. It is simply another instrument which allows people to form arbitrary divisions based on traditions. Islamic fundamentalism would never take over in a society without culture because it is an irrational, illogical, crazy culture. Claiming that it will usurp the national culture is like claiming that rabid Christianity will replace athiesm in a country which is not religious, when that is so clearly false.

Islamic Fundamentalism (dispite it's crazyness) is taking over societies WITH cultures. A society without one would fall like a house of cards.

And Christianity has taken over MANY cultures.

Really not sure what you're getting at here....

A "culture" is an outdated concept in this modern day and age. It is simply another instrument which allows people to form arbitrary divisions based on traditions. Islamic fundamentalism would never take over in a society without culture because it is an irrational, illogical, crazy culture. Claiming that it will usurp the national culture is like claiming that rabid Christianity will replace athiesm in a country which is not religious, when that is so clearly false. That is not to say that we shouldn't have a culture -- however, we should not be forced to participate in the creation and perpetuation of one. People can express their culture however they please -- if they wish to write, they can take a class in literature. If they wish to record music, they can take such a class. What would really go against our culture of freedom would be coercing them into taking such a course. You're the one who "hates" America by that logic.

MTAE, our perpetual debate has been truly epic, but for once I agree. I believe that once you're in High School, you should be allowed to take what classes that interest you. I love History, so I should take History based courses, as my chosen profession is to be a History Professor after I get out of the Army. However, as you said, we should have a choice.


....though Mathematics and basic reading course should be required Freshman year. Arts courses should be voluntary though. Primary courses such as Math, Science, History, and English should be required freshman year. After that, its all voluntary.

Islamic Fundamentalism (dispite it's crazyness) is taking over societies WITH cultures. A society without one would fall like a house of cards.

And Christianity has taken over MANY cultures.

Really not sure what you're getting at here....

American Culture is dominated by Christianity.

We do have school taught music.
We do have literature taught in school
We do have art taught in school.

Not sure what you're getting at since we do have all those things...

School taught arts reinforce culture and encourage creativity. Driving such courses out of schools removes the reinforcement, devalues the culture ("it's so worthless you don't even need to learn about it") and stamps on artistic creativity.
I am getting at that without having schools teach us what they view as culture we will still have culture. People are the source of what is our culture and not the schools.

School taught arts force students to deal with BS because somebody else views it as important. It does not devalue culture as promote a culture that most students will never enjoy, our culture is not Shakespeare, it is Harry Potter, it isn't Mozart it is whatever genre people listen to, nor is it Van Gogh, it is Southpark. Frankly, we are surrounded BY culture, and this culture is not purely some creation of people being forced to take those classes. Certainly there is nothing wrong with people choosing to take classes on these subjects but we shouldn't delude ourselves into thinking that these classes are what create a phenomenon that arises due to pre-existing human desires.

American Culture is dominated by Christianity.
Yes, and not due to public education either.

A "culture" is an outdated concept in this modern day and age. It is simply another instrument which allows people to form arbitrary divisions based on traditions. Islamic fundamentalism would never take over in a society without culture because it is an irrational, illogical, crazy culture. Claiming that it will usurp the national culture is like claiming that rabid Christianity will replace athiesm in a country which is not religious, when that is so clearly false. That is not to say that we shouldn't have a culture -- however, we should not be forced to participate in the creation and perpetuation of one. People can express their culture however they please -- if they wish to write, they can take a class in literature. If they wish to record music, they can take such a class. What would really go against our culture of freedom would be coercing them into taking such a course. You're the one who "hates" America by that logic.

Gotta love how you can go on about people who would "go against [your] culture of freedom" hating America while you have advocated a return to slavery and mandatory economics courses.

There is no good reason for it that I know of.

and here is your ignorance shining through again. The house being elected based upon population is not that there will not be a balance of the minority being able to control the majority of people who live in states that are more populace. The same could be said about the senate, although this was precisely the opposite. They didn't want to allow for a tyranny of the majority to exist so senators were to be two from each state in order to balance smaller states powers against larger states powers. Otherwise you'd have the larger states making decisions for smaller states based upon their large populations. This was called the "Great Compromise" and was a competition of the Virginia plan promoted by James Madison and The New Jersey Plan was written by William Patterson. Madison wanted it by population and Patterson wanted equal representation. This is your history lesson for today you ignorance troll.

A "culture" is an outdated concept in this modern day and age. It is simply another instrument which allows people to form arbitrary divisions based on traditions. Islamic fundamentalism would never take over in a society without culture because it is an irrational, illogical, crazy culture. Claiming that it will usurp the national culture is like claiming that rabid Christianity will replace athiesm in a country which is not religious, when that is so clearly false. That is not to say that we shouldn't have a culture -- however, we should not be forced to participate in the creation and perpetuation of one. People can express their culture however they please -- if they wish to write, they can take a class in literature. If they wish to record music, they can take such a class. What would really go against our culture of freedom would be coercing them into taking such a course. You're the one who "hates" America by that logic.

still waiting for you to correct you assumption that people live in poverty and are homeless because they don't know how to work money. Will I wait forever or will you ignore my proven statistics again troll? You can run for while but the rest of the board sees you getting pounded harder than Pam by Tommy Lee. Further, your whole premise is wrong as economics a study of micro or macro forces, none of which are covered in "personal finance." Further, where is art mandatory in high school? I know of not one school where you are forced to take arts past elementary school. Therefore your entire argument may just well be a wash and we've wasted 29 pages on you. Not that this is new to us as we waste time on your trolling frequently.

Because everyone can benefit from such a course. Many poor people are in poverty because they never learned how to manage money well -- I want to help them. Don't you?

Then why aren't connected brain neurons important.

How do you know that those poor people aren't poor because of a lack of brain neurons. You don't. You know why you don't? Because you haven't studied on this at all. I want to see a specific, legitimate statistic that proves what you just claimed.

The more feasable and proven reasons why a lot of people are poor are all based in history. Which you wouldn't know anything about as you have proved already. Many reasons why people are poor are a lot do with lack of opportunity because of actions or lack of opportunity of their ancestors. If you're grandparents lived in a box 50 years back, in most cases you will too. But then you wouldn't know about that either because I'm guessing you come from a white upper middle class home that makes at least 50,000 a year. That's just my guess by your complete lack of economic sense. As the gravedigger said in Hamlet "The hand of little experience hath oft the daintier touch." Then again you proabably think a hamlet is a pork cut.

This is your history lesson for today you ignorance troll.

I know the history behind it. I am simply stating that states' rights are an outdated concept in the modern US even though they were prevalent in the 1790s. I don't think someone from Massachusetts fears Virginia today, but that would not have been true centuries ago. The US is a single entity, while in the 1700s, it was composed of various, independent entities. The Constitution reflects this, but it doesn't serve a productive purpose except for alleviating paranoia.

First off, as to Holyawesome, I see no need to further our earlier conversation, as the arguments is basically broken down into opinion alone. I am not ignoring your statement, just accepting the fact that it will go no where. Good debate though.

A "culture" is an outdated concept in this modern day and age.

No, no it's not. Culture is everywhere, MTAE. Culture is not something necessarily defined, so much as how people of a given region act and live. Americans have a vastly different culture than many Europeans, and many Africans, and Many asian, and so forth. Culture is not something that is readily defined, it is instead what the lifestyle is like in a given region. You show great ignorance of the issue if you believe that culture is an outdated concept.


It is simply another instrument which allows people to form arbitrary divisions based on traditions. Islamic fundamentalism would never take over in a society without culture because it is an irrational, illogical, crazy culture.

Islamic fundamentalism is not a culture, MTAE. It is an idea. Also, there is no society without culture. Not even America, my friend. We have our own traditions and our own way of life that differs from others. That is really what culture is, scraped to the bare bones: Differing ways of life.


Claiming that it will usurp the national culture is like claiming that rabid Christianity will replace athiesm in a country which is not religious, when that is so clearly false.

Eh, "rabid" Christianity has been replaced many religions, usually by force. What's to stop them from doing so in a non religious country?


That is not to say that we shouldn't have a culture -- however, we should not be forced to participate in the creation and perpetuation of one. People can express their culture however they please -- if they wish to write, they can take a class in literature. If they wish to record music, they can take such a class. What would really go against our culture of freedom would be coercing them into taking such a course.

Little hint for ya, MTAE. Everyone contributes to culture. It is not something defined as by solely the arts, but everything a society does contributes to culture. The arts can emphasize culture, but it is not solely culture.

Also, another reason as to why you are "required" to take these classes(Really, usually at 11th grade the only required classes are Math, English, and Government/Civics, with the rest of the day your choice) is that it opens you up to new ideas. Some people may not have known they could be interested in something had they not had to take these classes. For instance, art is often considered an unmasculine class to take, and many of my friends who are now very much interested in art would never had been if they were not required to take these classes, and which at the time they thought art was "pointless" and "idiotic". However, after they took the class, they grew very interested in it.


You're the one who "hates" America by that logic.[/QUOTE]

A "culture" is an outdated concept in this modern day and age. It is simply another instrument which allows people to form arbitrary divisions based on traditions.

Hardly, (well I am sure there are exceptions) my Heritage is Polish(2nd generation American), I know how to make Kielbasa(other things as well) and I can speak a little Polish. Why? Tradition. Culture being passed on by the previous generations.

It's a fact of life.

Cultural divisions happen mainly because people seek familiarity. It's only a problem when it involves exclusion and or prejudice.

Islamic fundamentalism would never take over in a society without culture because it is an irrational, illogical, crazy culture.

Islam is not a culture. The very fact you have Sunni and Sheia killing each other shows this.


Claiming that it will usurp the national culture is like claiming that rabid Christianity will replace athiesm in a country which is not religious, when that is so clearly false.

:confused:


That is not to say that we shouldn't have a culture -- however, we should not be forced to participate in the creation and perpetuation of one.

Everybody has culture. EVERYBODY. Part of our being is passing on things to our children. Culture and traditions.....


People can express their culture however they please -- if they wish to write, they can take a class in literature. If they wish to record music, they can take such a class.

Music and literature classes don't always express your culture. Especially when you are in another land.


What would really go against our culture of freedom would be coercing them into taking such a course. You're the one who "hates" America by that logic.

History is a "forced" subject. Why do you deserve rights if you can't explain why you have them? What was the cost of getting them.....

Then why aren't connected brain neurons important.

They are. So why aren't we forcing all children to play chess in an attempt to improve their neural connections? Because the effect of such activities does not have that great an impact over intelligence -- after all, it is only 25% environmental. It is up to parents to stimulate their children in whatever way they feel is best and up to the schools to prepare children adequately for entry into the workforce. The two should not be mixed.

It is up to parents to stimulate their children in whatever way they feel is best and up to the schools to prepare children adequately for entry into the workforce. The two should not be mixed.

You don't have children do you?

I guess you missed the PTA groups that exist in just about all schools. The better schools have heavy parental involvement.

I sit on an educational standards group......

They are. So why aren't we forcing all children to play chess in an attempt to improve their neural connections? Because the effect of such activities does not have that great an impact over intelligence -- after all, it is only 25% environmental. It is up to parents to stimulate their children in whatever way they feel is best and up to the schools to prepare children adequately for entry into the workforce. The two should not be mixed.Of course, schools aren't only meant to make children part of the work force, they exist to make them good citizens too.

Of course, schools aren't only meant to make children part of the work force, they exist to make them good citizens too.

Don't tell that to him. He did say earlier that learning history wasn't important. It's one thing not to know a lot of "useless" information, such as who Warren Harding's secretary of state was, and it's another to have no ide about history at all. If we don't teach history, people will be at a total loss for what happened in the past, information will be distorted, and pretty soon we'll think we gained our independence from the Soviet Union during World War II when Donald Rumsfeld walked into Vladimir Lenin's office after hiking clear from London, English Channel and all, in a fine three-piece suit that didn't get wet and kicked Mr. Lenin in the testicles over and over until he agreed to release the USA from Communism. And that's why Americans exist solely for work, why history and literature are unimportant, and why, if we don't teach our kids about sex, they will be good Americans and know it's solely for procreation within a good, God-fearing heterosexual marriage.

ETA: This thread was on page 2 earlier today. Damn you KooleKoggle for bumping it up.

I guess if teaching economics at school will stop idiots thinking anyone can be a millionaire then I'm all for it.

I guess if teaching economics at school will stop idiots thinking anyone can be a millionaire then I'm all for it.

By the same token, we need to teach history and government so people don't blindly think Dubya's a living demigod.

I guess if teaching economics at school will stop idiots thinking anyone can be a millionaire then I'm all for it.

Actually anybody can.

Look at the Pet Rock.....

Actually anybody can.

Look at the Pet Rock.....

I think he means becoming a millionare on 15k a year, which is idiotic in an econmic sense, due to inflation, cost of living increases, and other ideas that are the basics of economics.

So, the question is, why are we debating someone who has shown in the past that he has almost no economic knowledge on the importance of economics?

I know the history behind it. I am simply stating that states' rights are an outdated concept in the modern US even though they were prevalent in the 1790s. I don't think someone from Massachusetts fears Virginia today, but that would not have been true centuries ago. The US is a single entity, while in the 1700s, it was composed of various, independent entities. The Constitution reflects this, but it doesn't serve a productive purpose except for alleviating paranoia.

States rights are what we Republicans are supposed to believe in. Understanding the platform of a party is not important?

So, the question is, why are we debating someone who has shown in the past that he has almost no economic knowledge on the importance of economics?
Because we are sadists who enjoy crushing the ideas of idiots???:D

For too long, the curriculum in our schools has been dominated by a liberal agenda. In elementary, middle, and high school, we are forced to learn such inconsequential topics like history and literature, art and music. These classes will not equip the future generation to find jobs, contribute to the economy, or manage their money wisely, yet they are mandatory in many areas. They should be replaced with more constructive courses, such as investment techniques, personal finance, etc. The primary function of schooling is not to cram students full of useless knowledge but to prepare them for entry into the workforce. Knowing who the 17th president of the US was or what the central themes of various novels are. If you are going to be a historian or a writer, such classes may benefit you; otherwise, they are a waste of your time. On the other hand, economic and finance courses will have a positive effect on all of us, because such skills are prerequisites to being successful after graduation. All of us must know how to best manage our money, how to invest, etc.

The primary function of schooling is to help people discover what they want to do.

Economics helps people live like people.
Art helps people be people.

No, I really don't care. In this case it is only the latter rather than the former and the latter that are responsible. My point was that what we consider "cultural" is sort of arbitrary. Frankly, I might prefer Harry Potter for my reading and pop music to listen to. I may not be a vision of high culture for making those choices, but why on earth does that really matter?

I just think that shallowness should be strongly discouraged. I'm glad that it is in schools.

I just think that shallowness should be strongly discouraged. I'm glad that it is in schools.
Why do the cultural preferences of others really matter to you? People can be as "shallow" as they want so long as they are capable of acting as a citizen and an employee, which are the goals of tax-funded education. If you personally want people to love Shakespeare then you can encourage it all you want and it should be available to those who want it, however, that is no reason to impose Shakespeare on individuals that will not benefit much from it, that will not enjoy it, and that would prefer not to undertake that endeavor. Frankly, I have no problem with individuals that enjoy the arts on their own time, I am just skeptical of forcing individuals to read things that do not please them for little to no gain.

I just think that shallowness should be strongly discouraged. I'm glad that it is in schools.

You're kidding, right?

Why do the cultural preferences of others really matter to you? People can be as "shallow" as they want so long as they are capable of acting as a citizen and an employee, which are the goals of tax-funded education. If you personally want people to love Shakespeare then you can encourage it all you want and it should be available to those who want it, however, that is no reason to impose Shakespeare on individuals that will not benefit much from it, that will not enjoy it, and that would prefer not to undertake that endeavor. Frankly, I have no problem with individuals that enjoy the arts on their own time, I am just skeptical of forcing individuals to read things that do not please them for little to no gain.

When people are still developing, I totally agree with shoving a bit of Shakespeare down their throats. The importance of the work and their relevance to the human condition are not debatable. Out of high school, after being subjected to as much as possible: sports, math, economics, shop, literature, grammar, history, science, music, etc... you're free to make you're own choices. You can also quit high school in most places at around 16 if you feel it's a waste of time. I hated gym, I tried everything I could do to get out of it but I'm glad now that I learned the value of excercise. I'm glad now that through Shakespeare I learned the value of truly great literature.

You're kidding, right?

Well... not at the level it should be but definitely more than it would be if it were without subjects like English or History...

The primary function of schooling is to help people discover what they want to do.

Right. The function of schooling is to help people discover what they want to do so that they can be more productive members of the workforce. If someone excels at using a lasso, that may be cool, but it's completely pointless, regardless of the fact that many people might want to be professional lasso-swingers. School should prepare people to contribute to the economy by presenting them with a variety of options and allowing them to pick whichever one suits them best. However, they should not be forced to take a course which doesn't suit them. If they want to take a particular class, and there is sufficient demand for that class, they should be able to do so.

Right. The function of schooling is to help people discover what they want to do so that they can be more productive members of the workforce. If someone excels at using a lasso, that may be cool, but it's completely pointless, regardless of the fact that many people might want to be professional lasso-swingers. School should prepare people to contribute to the economy by presenting them with a variety of options and allowing them to pick whichever one suits them best. However, they should not be forced to take a course which doesn't suit them. If they want to take a particular class, and there is sufficient demand for that class, they should be able to do so.

And what makes you think that underdeveloped young adults are able to make these types of decisions starting at the age of 14, say?

Right. The function of schooling is to help people discover what they want to do so that they can be more productive members of the workforce. If someone excels at using a lasso, that may be cool, but it's completely pointless, regardless of the fact that many people might want to be professional lasso-swingers. School should prepare people to contribute to the economy by presenting them with a variety of options and allowing them to pick whichever one suits them best. However, they should not be forced to take a course which doesn't suit them. If they want to take a particular class, and there is sufficient demand for that class, they should be able to do so.I remember that sport was one of the less popular classes. I'm sure that there'd be a drop in demand for the most important ones and we'd end up with a bunch of fat, uneducated, yet possibly productive worker drones, ready to be plucked up by the next (right/left)wing populist that comes along.

:rolleyes:

And what makes you think that underdeveloped young adults are able to make these types of decisions starting at the age of 14, say?

They may not be adults, but they are at least aware of which classes they prefer.

Right. The function of schooling is to help people discover what they want to do so that they can be more productive members of the workforce. If someone excels at using a lasso, that may be cool, but it's completely pointless, regardless of the fact that many people might want to be professional lasso-swingers. School should prepare people to contribute to the economy by presenting them with a variety of options and allowing them to pick whichever one suits them best. However, they should not be forced to take a course which doesn't suit them. If they want to take a particular class, and there is sufficient demand for that class, they should be able to do so.

Right, because entertainers and athletes are of no value to society. We should just ban sports, ban TV, ban movies, and ban music, never mind that those things are good for society and give people something to do when they're not working...because when people are not sleeping or eating or taking a big shit, they should be working. Plain and simple. Excuse me while I go take a five-hour-long big shit.

States rights are what we Republicans are supposed to believe in. Understanding the platform of a party is not important?

How interesting that you believe the Republican Party stands for States Rights. Didn't it achieve power in the mid-19th century by defeating the advocates of States Rights in a four-year civil war?

Right, because entertainers and athletes are of no value to society.

I never claimed that.

I never claimed that.

Really. So tell me then, if someone wants to grow up to be a musician, are they of any value to society?

They are. So why aren't we forcing all children to play chess in an attempt to improve their neural connections? Because the effect of such activities does not have that great an impact over intelligence -- after all, it is only 25% environmental. It is up to parents to stimulate their children in whatever way they feel is best and up to the schools to prepare children adequately for entry into the workforce. The two should not be mixed.

Congratulations on that nice work of trolling. You took one small sentence out of context and replied to it. Go ahead and answer the rest of it now.

Really. So tell me then, if someone wants to grow up to be a musician, are they of any value to society?

Yes, if people enjoy listening to their music and it has a positive impact upon the happiness of those who listen to them.

I find it an insult that people would consider me a troll.

Oh, well I think you're a racist moron, not a troll. Feel better?

For too long, the curriculum in our schools has been dominated by a liberal agenda. In elementary, middle, and high school, we are forced to learn such inconsequential topics like history and literature, art and music. These classes will not equip the future generation to find jobs, contribute to the economy, or manage their money wisely, yet they are mandatory in many areas. They should be replaced with more constructive courses, such as investment techniques, personal finance, etc. The primary function of schooling is not to cram students full of useless knowledge but to prepare them for entry into the workforce. Knowing who the 17th president of the US was or what the central themes of various novels are. If you are going to be a historian or a writer, such classes may benefit you; otherwise, they are a waste of your time. On the other hand, economic and finance courses will have a positive effect on all of us, because such skills are prerequisites to being successful after graduation. All of us must know how to best manage our money, how to invest, etc. Thus, a reform of the educational system is in order and the quaint liberal topics must be tossed out the window and other, more necessary, topics must take their place. Such improvement have a global benefit which extends to all Americans -- it will alleviate the burden of poverty by fighting its root causes and will speed up economic growth, which has been lagging lately. Our school system must be updated and revitalized to take into account the modern world.


Yes, let's get rid of the study of everything that makes it worth it to be a human, everything that makes humanity great.

You are not only a ridiculous troll, but a philistine as well.

Economics is the reality of human actions. It is hardly indirectly related to how we live our lives considering that it is at the heart of so many political concerns.

Money isn't something of intrinsic worth, it is simply a medium of exchange and economists KNOW that. This does not mean that money can be ignored due to its "falseness", after all, you'd be an idiot to argue that money supply doesn't matter or that inflation and deflation do not matter. Because it is a medium of exchange and vastly important to economic matters it is important. The amount of money available is vastly important to economic matters and what we do with it affects the nature of all exchanges, I mean, you have heard of monetarism?

We are not constructing a science around money in the first place, money is simply a part of the manner in which we distribute the material goods within a society. Economists study other aspects of the economy though and it isn't all about money per se but rather about how we can keep the economy, something important to most voters, afloat and doing well and the effects of things such as regulations, externalities, incentives, etc.

Economics is a step above astrology and to state that the 2 are the same is a sign of massive idiocy or a complete lack of understanding. Economists study what happens with incentives, trade-offs, and such and do so using empirical studies and rigorous mathematical analysis, which is starkly different from astrologers. The reason why it might not be considered as liberal as the other liberal arts is because econ and business are related, and as such in order to study business one needs some background in econ.

I find you un-necessarily rude. I shall over look it this time, but the next time you chose to embrace the same tactics, I shall simply not dignify you with a response.

It has nothing to do with 'idiocy' to argue that inflation/deflation do not 'matter', nor that 'money supply' does not 'matter'. Indeed, it is absolutely rational to insist that both of those things are the case. You are mistaking the appearance of the thing, for the thing itself. You go on to explain why a little later on - because the amount of 'money' in the system is the regulation on the 'value'. And that is why money does NOT matter, it has no 'value' of it's own, and only functions as a token of exchange between goods and services.

The problem arises when people treat money like a 'thing', and control it through external manipulations. Inflation and deflation are irrelevent, if market forces apply purely - because the gain in 'value' of a currency where there is NO external manipulation, would be matched by the amount of 'value' someone would attach to trading via that mechanism.

What you think the 'science' of economics has to do with 'voting', I'm not sure - it appears you have simply forgotten what the topic of discussion was, and have branched off at some political tangent - or you are stumping some platform... After all, if you were arguing that the 'value' of ecomonics is that it is a political tool... I think you'd actually be making my argument stronger, not your own.

Again - I'm not sure what you think you prove with your talk of incentives, trade-offs, etc - you seem to be under the misapprehension that incentivising is an economic concept, or that quid pro quo is somehow tied only to currency? The concepts you talk of are not peculiar to 'economics'... they are true in a number of spheres of human interaction... they are true especially in social interactions - and it doesn't get much more 'liberal' than that.

As for the fact that it uses mathematical rigour... perhaps you do not understand how mathematical music is? Perhaps you have never discussed 'meter' of poetic texts? Sticking numbers to it, doesn't make it science.

You and your friend (puppet? I'm trying to work out - you seem to exchange out on replies - are you and MTAE the same 'person'?) are not troling very convincingly. You should have picked a sounder premise from which to start.

Yes, let's get rid of the study of everything that makes it worth it to be a human, everything that makes humanity great.


I never said we should get rid of it, simply that it should not be mandatory. The sheer number of people who are misconstruing my ideas is getting quite annoying.

Yes, if people enjoy listening to their music and it has a positive impact upon the happiness of those who listen to them.

So why shouldn't people be asked to learn about such things in school? I agree that more emphasis on things people can actually use is a good idea, but that doesn't mean throwing out other parts of the curriculum. People need to learn how to write and how to express ideas. People need to learn history. People should know how to conduct experiments and draw conclusions. At the same time, people should learn how to manage money.

And since people need to learn about other parts of society, there's no problem with having school curricula that require some fine arts. Even in high school, I had to take an art class (sure, I substituted music instead, not really caring for either, but having knowledge in that area is never a bad thing.) Frankly, having more knowledge and more ability to perform useful things is good, but not at the expense of more "cultural" programs.

So to amend your title, "Up With Economics, But Not At Art's Expense." And if someone can make a good living as a professional lasso-swinger, there may be a good market for that in the entertainment industry. There probably isn't much of one, but some amusement park somewhere may have a use for having someone dress up as a cowboy and teach little kids how to swing a lasso to thunderous cheers of parents.

They may not be adults, but they are at least aware of which classes they prefer.

But are they mature enough to have an educated preference without being exposed to as many different fields as possible? I preferred video games when I was 14. Luckily I was forced to do some things I did not prefer at the time which has made me a better and more rounded person.

I never said we should get rid of it, simply that it should not be mandatory. The sheer number of people who are misconstruing my ideas is getting quite annoying.

Just so you know, I'm arguing with you over the fact that you have the opinion that it should not be mandatory for all students.

I find it an insult that people would consider me a troll.

Then prepare to be insulted, troll. This has gotten old.