School Responsibilities (2 Viewers)

[guidomerkinsrules]

Yeah, that's why I don't think we're in hard disagreement -- I think it's just semantics.

My original point was in the context of capitalism and (mixed) free markets being the economic system which provides the greatest level of collective human benefit, relative to all the others, because it channels the negative aspects of human nature more efficiently to the greatest common good, relative to all the others.

So, recognizing that brevity in this case likely raises many more questions than it answers:

- Traditional: worse because of human nature
- Command: worse because of human nature
- Free Market: worse because of human nature

ok, i'm with that
but what i would suggest is that 'capitalism' also gets semantical in this - one definition would support the notion of an overall benefit bc it maximizes development another would support notion of overall detriment bc it maximizes poverty/lack
- degree of regulation would need to be a necessary consideration
so which part of capitalism is being incentivized - maximizing wealth or minimizing loss?

 

[HoustonSaint68]

then hard disagree about your hard disagree about my hard disagree - most any psych/sociological experiment will show we're fundamentally social/cooperative. in fact it's hard to imagine our species surviving if we were fundamentally self-interested (basic biology couldn't give 2 farts about the individual, it's built on diversifying the gene pool to ensure adaptability and thus survival) - and supposedly we can live in a fairly egalitarian tribe of up to about 75 or so people (maybe even 200+)
it seems like our big social shift was cultivating grain which allowed us to harvest then store it - at that point, the tribe not only needs 'soldiers' to help defend from outside forces, but also 'police' to protect assets from inside

I completely agree with your post above.

Where we might disagree, and where I shift toward St.Widge's thinking, is this:

At almost 8 billion and counting, we ain't going back to the small tribe model. Given that reality, we must also accept who drives our larger tribes' actions and, crudely argued, I'd argue that animalistic alpha human behavior most widely prevails in that regard. And given that, a mixed (but largely free) market is most benefical to the largest number of humans, despite its many horrendous flaws.

That is, until we murder many of our own and other species, return to tribes of 75-150 people who can't farm on wasted landscape, and find the better angels of our nature once again....

 

[HoustonSaint68]

but what i would suggest is that 'capitalism' also gets semantical in this - one definition would support the notion of an overall benefit bc it maximizes development another would support notion of overall detriment bc it maximizes poverty/lack
- degree of regulation would need to be a necessary consideration
so which part of capitalism is being incentivized - maximizing wealth or minimizing loss?

Not sure I agree with the bolded part, at least relative to lack of physical want when comparing against any competing economic system, after multiple generations on.

Now, I am certainly open to an argument that one should use a different definition of "detriment" that is much, much broader than mere physical manifestations of poverty.

And, certainly, true free markets absent any command regulation are really bad; we're seeing that now, just as Roosevelt-Taft-Wilson faced. Although I suspect even that is perhaps still better than the alternatives...but only because of the producers' selfish need to create enough wealth in consumers to continue to generate profit. But I am far from an economist so I wouldn't even attempt to argue that point.

 

[St. Widge]

then hard disagree about your hard disagree about my hard disagree - most any psych/sociological experiment will show we're fundamentally social/cooperative. in fact it's hard to imagine our species surviving if we were fundamentally self-interested (basic biology couldn't give 2 farts about the individual, it's built on diversifying the gene pool to ensure adaptability and thus survival) - and supposedly we can live in a fairly egalitarian tribe of up to about 75 or so people (maybe even 200+)
it seems like our big social shift was cultivating grain which allowed us to harvest then store it - at that point, the tribe not only needs 'soldiers' to help defend from outside forces, but also 'police' to protect assets from inside

Those same experiments also show that we have a endorphins and other hormones release when we are cooperative. Which suggests that the motive is really self-interest and feeling good because we conformed. Also, those experiments don't take into account the amount of socialization that we have toward forming social/cooperative groups. It's why psychology isn't a hard science. They can't control the variables in experiments without doing some very unethical things.

Beyond that, all of the above ignores why we joined into those social/cooperative groups in the first place which was for self-preservation/self-interest. The fact is that even when we are in groups we tend to attack other groups because we are not hard wired to group together, we are only hard wired to group together for protection. Which is why we will as a group attack those that we see as different or a threat to our group. We do it with minorities and others not in our "tribe" all the time. The fact that we need "Police" and "soldiers" is proof positive that we don't have natural instincts to be kind or help others. It's not at all surprising that after living our lives in a more or less cooperative society we always see it as a good thing and in our self-interest. It's because it is a good think and in our self-interest which is why we tend to enter into them.

And, the reason we tend to have more success living in group/communal settings in small numbers is because those groups tend to be made up of like minded people committed to that specific goal because it makes them happy. You can't just take 75 random people and do that. If you do, you end up with Lord of the Flies. Again the problem with those "experiments" are that there are no controls so no valid conclusions can be drawn.

But, frankly, there is probably no provable right or wrong answer to this. As with all things in the realm of psychology, the best we can do is make guesses since you can't do the controlled experiments necessary to confirm any hypothesis.

 

[tenordas]

As a former high school teacher, I am going to tell you that financial literacy is discussed in many classes. The kids paying attention are already learning these lessons, the kids not paying attention are not going to learn this lesson just because you mandate it to be taught.


This is "feel good" legislation that will not improve the outcome for at risk students.

I totally disagree with you, but perhaps it's just we're in different districts. Such things are not taught in this district, and personal finance should be its own class. I took such a class at LSU and it was excellent. I remember thinking at the time it was something we should have been taught in high school. I'm all over this decision.

Frankly., I think personal finance and statistics would be much smarter "required" math classes than Algebra II and Calculus. Nothing wrong with advanced math, but for the vast majority of students the other classes would be more beneficial to what they'll be doing in life.

 

[mjcouvi]

Ummmm, exactly??? Because, throughout the course of human history, which type of human almost always leads the tribe and instructs and is followed by the others? (Hint: it's the sheetty kind)

I mean, are we really in hard disagreement?

On the flip side, I don't get the folks who get super down and depressed (NB: I'm not referring to clinical depression) about the crappiness that still abounds in human society -- especially those folks who don't believe in an "Involved Creator". Of all people, they should understand that humans are nothing special in the world -- just highly evolved animals. Non-religious folks should be absolutely gobsmacked at the amazing capacity of humans to be kind and altruistic.

The number of humans on the planet who don't live in squalor wallowing in their own sheet is at its peak in human history. That should be celebrated, not moaned over just because we now have social media which bombards us with the horribleness of humankind 24/7. It's actually the good times -- perhaps we just don't want to acknowledge just how truly crappy the last quarter-million years have been for our species.

I couldn't be more behind this message. You can simultaneously want our world to be better AND recognize that we are in the midst of experiencing tremendous human progress on a never-before-seen scale.

 

[Saint by the Bay]

Probably shouldn't be surprising the energy field with companies like Shell headquartered in Houston. A mentor for my daughter's robotics team went to A&M and was a Shell Chemical engineer for 30 or so years in Houston. He always encouraged the kids to go to A&M. Especially if they wanted to do Chemical Engineering. I always thought it was just school pride and, since my daughter either wanted Naval Engineering or Electrical Engineering, I didn't explore it more. But, that's probably why he was so big on A&M.

Yeah, an engineering degree from A&M is basically Willy Wonka's Golden Ticket in Houston and Dallas. All the candy you can eat, because you will be able to afford it all.

 

[mjcouvi]

Yeah, an engineering degree from A&M is basically Willy Wonka's Golden Ticket in Houston and Dallas. All the candy you can eat, because you will be able to afford it all.

I went there, I found the general A&M obsession among my fellow students to be borderline intolerable. They're crazy and they will probably hire their fellow crazy A&M folk. It seems to work for them.

 

[dtc]

I hope it’s a freshman-sophomore level course. By the time senior year roles around it’ll probably be too late for many students.

This is a no brainer

I'm really not sure why we wait till High School.

I started mowing neighbors yards and doing odd chores well before then. I believe I had my first checking account about 12 and an ATM when they first came out back about 13 or so.

Why not teach kids about money starting about kindergarten?

Is it ever too early? Mommy gives you a quarter for the vending machine. SHouldn't the kid have a clue what they can get?

 

[mjcouvi]

I'm really not sure why we wait till High School.

I started mowing neighbors yards and doing odd chores well before then. I believe I had my first checking account about 12 and an ATM when they first came out back about 13 or so.

Why not teach kids about money starting about kindergarten?

Is it ever too early? Mommy gives you a quarter for the vending machine. SHouldn't the kid have a clue what they can get?

Kids intuitively understand money. It's never too early.

 

[saintmdterps]

As a former high school teacher, I am going to tell you that financial literacy is discussed in many classes. The kids paying attention are already learning these lessons, the kids not paying attention are not going to learn this lesson just because you mandate it to be taught.


This is "feel good" legislation that will not improve the outcome for at risk students.

In this area high schoolers get business math and home economics. It's not an in-depth financial review but it's a good start. DeSantis is just posturing and preening for votes.

 

[mjcouvi]

In this area high schoolers get business math and home economics. It's not an in-depth financial review but it's a good start. DeSantis is just posturing and preening for votes.

DeSantis' name really makes this whole movement near meaningless because anyone who wants to attach his name to it is assuring that it will be poopood by a significant portion of mainstream media. I don't even know if DeSantis had much to do with any of it.

 

[saintmdterps]

I dug into this a bit more and from the official Florida government website, this bill passed unanimously with all Yeas and no Nays in both the Senate and the House. It'll be a 0.5 credit class starting next school year. Seems like a great idea if nothing like this was already taught as part of a required course. I'll have to ask my boys, but I don't remember them taking any class like this in high school, with the oldest getting some financial literacy from an accounting elective.

I hope they teach the woes of student loans. 18 year-olds can sign for multiple student loans loans and place themselves 100K in debt, but never have to show the ability to repay. If you apply for a mortgage at 18, which you can do, the first thing that must be demonstrated is the ability to repay that loan

 

[mjcouvi]

I hope they teach the woes of student loans. 18 year old can sign for multiple loans and place themselves 100K in debt, but never have to show the ability to repay. If you get a mortgage at 18, which you can do, the first thing that must be demonstrated is the ability to repay that loan

Meanwhile, almost every bit of information you paid 100k for, all of it could have been free. It is free. Education is free. It's the stamp of approval by some elite university you pay money for. That kind of system simply won't last. "Higher education" is over, done for, in the near future. There are too many better alternatives.

 

[saintmdterps]

Oh, whoops, I thought you were being sarcastic in your previous post. Sorry, I'm really bad at this interwebs thing and I'm constantly doing it wrong.

Says the mod