https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Jaur%C3%A8s

Can you explain how supply creates demand(One of the main tenants of Monetarism, the economic idea he founded)?(I just want to understand the viewpoint)

I think the answer is pretty simple, though my explanation may be incorrect.

In terms of innovation, new technology (supply) creates a new demand for a product (demand). For example, on July 25th, 1978 the first test tube baby was created in England (Louise Brown). This created a new sector for medical and reproductive technology - namely in vitro fertilization. Thus scientists helped to create research that was the foundation for birth clinics that offered couples who traditionally could not have children the opportunity for in vitro fertilization and surrogate motherhood. The demand was not created for the technology until the actual product was created by scientists. This idea could apply to other new technology innovations to come: phones, computers, tablets, online shopping. No one thought these technologies were possible, so there was no real demand for them (on a mass consumer scale anyhow).

Edited 2/9/2016 15:38:20

Not going to enter the big discussion and take a minor derail on a subject mentioned on the thread:

Education can never be governmental.

Any sort of governmental education automatically is worthless.

Countries in which public schools are preferred over private schools *conveniently* have a much higher suicide rate than the ones in which private schools are the option for anyone capable of paying it.

The public school system is basically a suicide inducer, because middle school and high school is an eternal game of social interactions goes parallel with the studies, forcefully lowering the grades of every single student and as such the quality of the studies. This deeply impacts some people's lives by making them feel excluded, useless, worthless or anything else, as well as make even the ones who don't go through that have a constant problem due to grades.

In governmental schools, due to the lack of any payment, less people actually care about their grades, and more actually care about that eternal battle for social recognition and attention. And the culture shocks between rich and poor only makes it worse, as the poor people want to look rich and pretend their living condition is of the 1%, while the rich kids will want to try and look autonomous and street-wise.

In other words, any form of mass education will fail if they give opportunity for social interaction. The only ways I can see education being perfect is either have every student have a classroom and teacher all for himself (impossible) or seeking to strain the social part of schools (best option seems like virtual classes, tbh).

I'll never support free education becuase education as a whole has a lot to improve and any funding should go towards these improvements. This might sounds like (you guessed it!) elitist, but honestly, it is the truth. While schools have all these issues with social interactions, the more open they are, the more damaging they are to the students.

The schools here that tend to get amazing grades (and no one dies during the courses from suicide, car accident while drunk or murdered) are the ones that require both doing a ridiculously tough entrance test AND pay. It actually feels worth it to have a classroom with 10 people, everyone can ask and they're all friends among themselves, so there's no popularity strifes or anything. Just study, study, study, and on free time, enjoying their day as they'd like, not as their classmates would like. Happy students, with great grades. Sadly, I never got to personally experience such.

General PE, there are a lot of forms of capitalism and a lot of forms of socialism. Your conception is based in the initial theories about what Marx supposed that the world would probably become. The evolution of the ideas of socialism has more then 150 years. Even the capitalism has a lot of different forms, some of this forms are mixed with some ideas of socialism.

You could imagine it as how the christianism is today: catholicism, lutheranism, orthodoxism, pentecostalism and a hundred others are all christians. Dont think that the socialism (or even the capitalism) is a unique form and there is only an A or a B.

Sometimes i see another thing, and im curious if its normal in the USA: people really reduce the most complex things to only two options? Sometimes it seems to me that you need to chose between capitalist or socialist, democrat or republican, pepsi or coke, pro or con abortion, gay rights, evolution, etc..
(im not criticising or saying you are wrong, its just curiosity)

JaiBharat, in some ways you are right: a lot of things that we buy there is really not needed, you only create the demand because there is supply. BUT, its not always that way, a lot of times it doesnt work (a lot of companies bankrupt because of that) and sometimes it create HUGE problems (this is one of the main reasons (or the main) that the Great Depression of 1929 happened.

The main reason was people not knowing the time to stop. What kept companies afloat was the stock market, their actual value was much inferior to the nominal value. If they knew this, they wouldn't have made a ridiculously large stock (supply) for the little to no demand (making new, creative fridges, ovens and stuff when basically every american capable of buying them already had one).

High supply to demand ratio was the problem (the reason why everyone went bankrupt so quickly), but not the foundation of the problem. That was general stupidity. I mean, it all blew up because some random guy just decided it was a good time to sell everything he has at once. And that was it. ._.

@[AOE] JaiBharat909, I suspected it worked like that as an advertising stuff creating demand, the more people know about something, the more they will have a mind about it and thus decide if they want something or not. It will always create demand to some extent.


As for you, GeneralPE, I still believe you're ignorant about socialism. Socialism is different from communism, which is supposed to be an "upgrade" from socialism.

Socialism is bad because of dictature it needs to have to exist. Gvnt must seize all properties and control the media to avoid unrest and the collapse of the hole "revolution".

Communism is really a theorical belief where the property is not owned anymore by a gvt, but rather by it's workers, because there is NO GVT.

Now tell me that a society with an omnipotent state is the same as one without one, and I'll tell you: BULLSHIT.


As for France, I'm kindda french, and I'll say that what you said is highly uncorrect. The socialist party in France is actually making a shift to the center because of terrorism and bad economic results on the last few years. Now a few corrections:

1) France is still, to some extent, a democratic socialist country, but I affraid we're slowly losing a few of the benefits every year.
2) The socialist party is really in turmoil because of this, a third of the congressmen and senators declared they were against this shift and many more might not like it but haven't still stated it.
3) French people aren't dumb (at least supporters of the left, I won't say the same for the ones supporting the far right). The socialist party will get crushed in the next elections, he has already lost regional and the european ones.

But still, France is an amazing place to live, and I'll do college there, I'll vote for the socialists, because the right and the far-right are total morons (even though our right is far better then your republicans) and I'll hope that the social system built on the last decades might resist.

I suspected it worked like that as an advertising stuff creating demand, the more people know about something, the more they will have a mind about it and thus decide if they want something or not. It will always create demand to some extent.

Well what I'm trying to say is that technological innovation is the source of demand and supply. But I think supply (at least in our current times) comes before demand. No one wanted a cell phone before the first cell phone because no one (except a handful of scientists, computer engineers, and Defense Department people) thought it was possible or feasible consumer item. However as soon as it became marketable the demand was created.

No one wanted Chipotle until Chipotle was created. No one wanted Pizza until Pizza was created. No one wanted a vacuum cleaner until a vacuum was created. No one wanted Uggs until uggs were created. I think you get the point.

Zeph, your opinion on the School system and the Social part of it is quite interesting tbh, in France like most of the Western World nations the problem you pointed out cannot be neglected. But I would say your vision of this system is truncated, since in countries like China or South Korea, despite being hundred in a class, you wont have the problem of social interactions going parallel with the studies lowering the grades of every single student and as such the quality of the studies. Why? The answer is culture.

It is not about changing the school system, but changing our culture, the education first inherited from the parents/family, the ethics, the moral, etc. This is my opinion so of course you can disagree with me.

And Zephyrum, your concept of public education makes no sense.

Canada, Finland and Germany. Those three countries have good school global ratings. Most of the system is public and has a lot of gvnt inside of it.

The US has bad school global ratings. The country is rich, but the public system is fucked up, because government doens't give a shit about it's poor students.


It's stupid not to have good public schools. You just lose many potential genius because of them not going to proper schools. I won't go further on the subject to tell you how this is bad, it's too long to explain.

And as money making people want to study more, I don't think so. I was in one of the best schools in Brazil (private, and only allowed to people knowing how to speak french). We had very good teachers, facilities and very little classes (we were 20).


But I'll tell you the truth. There was people on my class that didn't give a fuck for school. They had bad grades, slept in classes, lied to their parents about their grades telling it was the school's fault, didn't gave teachers the respect they deserved and worst of it, lacked will to improve.
Seems a lot familiar to public schools huh? Well, the difference is that half of my class were good students and worked hard. I just feeled bad we couldn't just change the other half for students in public institutions, that would greatly apreciate to have a good school and future perspectives other then the shitty ones offered to poor people in Brazil.

TeamGuns I'm interested how you explain the significantly better education received by the Japanese and South Koreans even though they spend less or about equal to the amount spent by the USA. I think this confirms what Zeph and Koala were saying: culture, work ethic, and family life matters in determining how successful an education will be for any given child.

Link - http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2015/11/25/national/public-education-spending-japan-lowest-oecd-sixth-straight-year/

Japan spends the lowest in the OECD (developed countries) on Education and South Korean spending is equal to the USA, yet they get better results.

Yes, I agree. Culture is probably the most important factor for education. The job of school is to give you knowlage, but it's your parents/society that will give you values, it's not the job of school to do it, and values are determinant for the school results.

I read some of the bio Angry Koala. Social democracy is not socialism in its true form.

"Socialism is bad because of dictature it needs to have to exist. Gvnt must seize all properties and control the media to avoid unrest and the collapse of the hole "revolution".

Communism is really a theorical [sic] belief where the property is not owned anymore by a gvt, but rather by it's workers, because there is NO GVT."

Communism is different from socialism in that it is a political doctrine as well as economic system. Because it envisions a Utopian society, it is an impossibility. People attempt to get as close as possible by instituting an all powerful government running everything, which inevitably fails. This is proven by history, and lines up perfectly with your definition of socialism. This means a) you confuse socialism with communism, b) everyone in the world confuses communism with socialism and China/USSR/n. Korea are actually socialist, or c) socialism and communism are the same things.
I simply relay the definition of socialism, the ownership of means of production by workers/public, and contrast it with capitalism, to show the impossibility of conflating the two systems. However, it is possible to have social democracy or regulated capitalism.

"The evolution of the ideas of socialism has more then 150 years. Even the capitalism has a lot of different forms, some of this forms are mixed with some ideas of socialism."

There are various forms, like democratic socialist, as others have pointed out. However, true socialism is based on private individuals not controlling the means of production. Things like social democracy and regulated free markets and redistributionism are not actual socialism, but corruptions and conflations. I just wish people could not use the term 'socialist' without understanding its true meaning. I would just rather have people use specific terms like redistributionist.

But I would say your vision of this system is truncated, since in countries like China or South Korea, despite being hundred in a class, you wont have the problem of social interactions going parallel with the studies lowering the grades of every single student and as such the quality of the studies. Why? The answer is culture.

Exactly. But that's because their culture makes so their parents don't want them to use school to socialize but to ACTUALLY STUDY (should be it's sole purpose).

It is not about changing the school system, but changing our culture, the education first inherited from the parents/family, the ethics, the moral, etc. This is my opinion so of course you can disagree with me.

True, but these changes only effectively happen in case every single one of the parents do that. As long as one plays the popularity strife, it'll sure make more and more people get to it. Easier to just change the system because it takes years while changing a culture takes decades.

Canada, Finland and Germany. Those three countries have good school global ratings. Most of the system is public and has a lot of gvnt inside of it.

And the highest suicide rates, too.

Finland places 33rd on the suicide rank.
Canada places 70th.
Germany, 77th.

It might sound kinda low, but no, it's not. The first 20 places or so are basically third world shitpiles, Russia's love zone and a few nordic countries. The only arguably industrialized countries before Finland are Japan, South Korea and Russia. The rest are either Africans (Tanzania, Mozambique...), central asians (Kazakhstan, Nepal) and eastern europeans (Juqland, Ukraine, Lithuania).

In addition, their culture is also majorly different from that of western europe and the USA. Canada aside. Canada is an abomination in literally everything they do and every ranking they participate. Damn hipsters.

Germany has a workaholic culture by most standards so that's expected. And Finland... Well, they are Finland. Perkele.

~~~

What I said pretty much applies to Western Europe (UK + France + Netherlands + Spain + Portugal) and american countries colonized by them. The USA is the shiny, most noticeable failure. Mostly due to culture. Americans do tend to have a higher ego, so the social part of school actually is most of it for them (result = school shootings schedules for every other thursday, grab your popcorn and turn on the television).

But traces of that also happened to show up in other american countries as the government's influence in schools increase. In brazil, we had our first (and so far, last) school shooting in the past decade. Since then, we never had any, as our economy opened to private third parties to own schools in here and a bunch of schools have been sold to several large American companies. Since then, our basic education had a boom, and anyone who goes to the USA during middle school claims their middle school is "too easy" and "shitty", but sadly our college system is still completely dominated by the state. The result? Well...

Unironically, the good colleges in the USA are private and in here, public. Good for us, we have free college! ...And shitty education. Our three best colleges are all located in the southeastern region and take 127th, 215th and 284th position in the world ranking. Meanwhile, the USA's top three are, well, First, second and third worldwide. In fact, out of the top 20 in the world, 16 are american. And they never see "college shootings", they always happen in schools.

@GeneralPE, I never said communism was an attainable goal, I do actually believe it is impossible to archieve and that it is even madness to believe it is possible. Human nature is against it.


As for schools, school and college shootings in the US are a consequence of their gun laws as well as their culture. Brazil hasn't much shootings because we have strict gun laws. Even though it doesn't prevent gun crime to be very high, it does avoid everyone from having a gun at home, which might lead to tragedies every time you're in a bad mood.


As for good college, it is unfair that it is public in Brazil, while good schools are all private. You just go to private schools and then get free college as a reward for being rich.

As an example of this, I've passed to UFRJ (second college in the country). Well, I believe I'm inteligent enough to be there and that I'll fit in it easely. But the truth is, I haven't even studied for the national test to enter on this college. I just did it with my knowlage acquired in the private school I attended and it was really just too easy. It demonstrates the inequality of being in a good school rather then being in a bad one. Good public tuition should be a right, not a thing you can buy.

The biggest irony, is that I will only stay here for a few months before I leave for France, so I'm entering at college here just cause I can and cause it's free.

While I agree with zeph, we do see college shootings (Virginia tech, Umpqua).
I must say, people saying everyone should have free college are so silly. The most obvious effect would be a drop in quality. College is for a) the rich, and b) the intelligent who can get scholarships. I'm sorry, but if you aren't one of those two, get a job, go to trade school, or join the army. Or marry someone rich. But college is a privilege, not a right.

PE, education should be a right not a privilege. Get your facts right for once.

Edited 2/9/2016 18:20:48

@GeneralPE

Nonsense. I said free college is a right, but it is also a privilege. With free college everywhere, you would see a raise in quality. Just put hard tests to enter it.

Because
a) dumb rich people wouldn't join it
b) the ammount of places doesn't need to be higher in a free system, so there will be more competition for college as even poor people will be able to join it


As for the rest:
- Get a job, tipical republican bullshit. You can't pay college with a shitty job, you can barelly live with it.
- Join the army. Hell no one should have to risk their lives to go to college.
- Marry someone rich. That's the most stupid one, I do not need to explain it...

College doesn't need to be an elitist place, but rather a place with elite students.

The most obvious effect would be a drop in quality. College is for a) the rich, and b) the intelligent who can get scholarships.

So you are saying that if college entrance is based on merit rather than who can pay for it, there would be a drop in quality? great logic genius

But college is a privilege, not a right.

i hope that you are just a selfish prick with lots of money who wants to keep its privileges. Because otherwise you are a complete moron

OK, allowing only the best in for free is fair teamguns. But I doubt we would stop at that; after all, it would hurt the feelings of the other kids. And when I said " get a job, go to trade school, or join the army. Or marry someone rich. ", I was saying what to do INSTEAD of college, not to pay for it.

@Hitchslap I made my arguments assuming the person was advocating college for everyone, not just affordable college for the best and brightest. If that is what you want, OK. But I doubt it. Let me get this straight. College is a right; therefore, all should be able to have it, yes? But at the same time, we should only allow in the most intelligent? Pick one or the other.

"i hope that you are just a selfish prick with lots of money who wants to keep its privileges. Because otherwise you are a complete moron"
I am middle-class and by no means rich, but I have an excellent chance for a free or reduced ride at a number of excellent colleges. However, that is not the point. The point is, while a basic education should be given to all, only the most intelligent should move on to higher education. And the rich should be able to go no matter how mental; if they want to pay let them and use that money to help the poorer students.

Edited 2/9/2016 18:28:52