Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 15^th, 2014 at 12:37pm:


which is why one would agree with Tony in that school decisions ought to be localised, away from the bureaucracy of a state government department. And if needed, more funding to those who need it.  Students have varying degrees of motivation, that is true, and that won't be fixed by more funding for schools, but rather more work on social equality, as another correlation that we can make is that the motivations are very much based on their environment (family, family economy, etc).   Like I said, some kids, like aqua's barrister friend's son, would be taught that they can be an astronaut if they want, and they will actually believe this. And the network of other kids/people they are in within their society would also encourage this. But other kids may simply feel like what aqua suggests, which is to merely get out of the ghetto. There isn't a motivation to be what you want to be, but a motivation to not have it as bad as your parents did. And it's HERE that government can help. And should help, for each kid deserves the opportunity to strive; up to them if they wish to use that opportunity.

But definitely, where schools are involved, government needs to stop concentrating on private school investment, and start concentrating on the 70% of disadvantaged kids who are looked after in the public system.  IF the teachers are not good, let the principal and school board decide on the course of action, and provide them with the resources to make the decisions they need to.

Misty, I tell you what: You're a master of something, or a PHD, or whatever, so I'm assuming you understand how to conduct research.  Perform research on your hypothesis that "Muslims like drive bys more than whities."  Get an adequate randomly selected sample from both groups, and if the research shows CONCLUSIVELY that muslims all enjoy drive bys, I will bow down to you.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 18^th, 2014 at 10:06pm:


You raise some good points, Alevine, but at the risk of giving Mistie an orgasm, I wonder whether  equality on its own can be the benchmark for a successful society. For the French, there were three: liberty, equality and fraternity. Our tradition, of course, has prioritized liberty. Fraternity seems to be a long forgotten social value, but ultimately, these are all abstracts.

Capitalism measures success by per capita GDP. While there are a number of valid criticisms of this form of measurement, it is a good indicator of a range of factors. It’s a good predictive tool. It can tell you a lot about the direction of a society, it’s demography, its urban growth, deforestation and energy use. While these don’t tell you much about the quality of a society, they tell you a lot about its quantities, which are important.

Abstracts like liberty, equality, fraternity, etc,  are only useful if they can be applied in practice. Under socialism, for example, Cuba had excellent health care and literacy rates, but it was dirt poor. People might have had a fair degree of equality, but no liberty. And they starved.

The cash crop economy of Ethiopia starved too, but while famines there have killed millions, people in the cities get their hands on food. In one sense, this is the essence of a free market economy, albeit a failed economy by any form of measurement.

Equality is important, but it shouldn't be prioritized over increasing wealth and raising living standards. In capitalism, equality is impossible. Those on high incomes will always have a higher pool of wealth/capital through their compound interest alone.

However, if you tax this excessively, this investment does not lead to wages growth for those on low incomes. Capitalism always involves a balancing act between capital and labour, and if other countries offer lower wages and levels of taxation, capital will migrate. 

This, of course, is happening in manufacturing jobs as we speak. It's due to the high Australian dollar, which has nothing to do with government. This is the result of a "two-tier" economy and the demand for Australian dollars to pay for mining resources. Mining exports go up, manufacturing exports come down. Global capitalism is full of such contradictions and negative feedback loops.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 18^th, 2014 at 10:48pm:


It's an unexplored topic. It's ripe to be researched.

Quote:


I've never stated I have used these as sources.
Media sources, though, can often be the only way to know the ethnicity involved in crime. Academics need to pick up their game here.

Quote:


I read those pages and it's not even clear as to what it is you're arguing any more. There's nothing in the conclusion on page 60 about inequality causing crime.

Quote:


If you're going to throw a 332 page book in front of me, at least have the decency to point me to where I can find your supposed thesis.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 19^th, 2014 at 9:08pm:


Good propaganda, comrade. Alan would be proud - "you're not supposed to say this, but I will...".

Apart from Alan, where does the media get its sources from, Mistie?

Quote:


Ah.

The media creates/reflects an agenda, Aquascoot, that decides policies and governments. We are all subject to this.

Political "moods" are also hugely influential, whether people consume news media or not. The majority of voters make decisions on the feelings of others, on whether it’s time for any particular government to go or stay. They try to pick winners and losers. No one really knows what goes on in Canberra, even Fran Kelly listeners.

Political news is like fashion. At the top you have couture, which drives styles. At the bottom you have chain stores which reflect some, but very little of the top end. Stripes or pastel colours might be in, wide or thin lapels, bootleg or stovepipe.

Most don’t read Peter Hartcher or Michelle Grattan, but some of their thoughts make into the talkback agenda of the day. Also, they reflect the talkback agenda in a constant feedback loop. Media influences politics and vice versa.

Somewhere, amidst this hall of mirrors, lies demokracy. Take the first Rudd government. Despite all the backgrounding, how much were the public informed of the chaos that, by all accounts, existed in the office of the Prime Minister? Rudd did his usual doorstops and visits and everyone assumed everything was in control.

In reality, the public know nothing, and the media reflects this. We get told very little of the real reasons and motivations for policies, and we know little about their implimentation.

And this, as Mistie says, is "progress".