That’s a very limited view. Is your entire role in society to be a consumer? Sounds like a welfare queen to me. Producers, on the other hand, need inputs. They need trained and talented people. They need resources. They need capital.
News flash: all of those inputs are people-based. Unless the car manufacturer is going to go out and dig, transport, refine, and forge the steel he needs to make cars himself, he’s got to pay people who can do those things to do them for him. He’s going to need capital, he gets that from lenders, and banks. He’s going to need labor. People. Trained people. Educated people. And where do those people come from? Schools. Parents. No schools, no parents: no economy. No economy, no country. It’s not hard to understand.
Instead of relying on a true capitalist economic model, we now use government force to steal money from all people to fund a school system. This school system has now created an "education is a right" mentality. As a result, people don't see that education as the required foundation to be able to earn their way in life. That motivation has become disconnected in the economic model presented by the author of this article, as well as the "investment for the future" arguments made on this thread.
There is no country in the world that’s fully capitalist. And I challenge your assumption that “people don't see that education as the required foundation to be able to earn their way in life”. That’s hardly provable. And even if true, then what do kids go to college for?
The economic model presented by this author and by many on this thread are actually detrimental to society.
You haven’t said ‘how’. I could say “flying cows were the first mammals to walk on the moon” with all the authority you muster here.
Capitalism is being destroyed by the "children are good for society" folks.
Yet another ridiculous, unsupported claim. Really, that’s all you have here. Unsupported claims.
Yes, children should be celebrated and supported, but that should be by the individual families/churches/etc. not by all of society.
Allow me to offer you one final bit of education. Free of charge; I’m a people-person. Consider the case of the rich taxpayer versus the middle-class taxpayer. The rich taxpayer pays far more in property taxes and income taxes than does the middle-class taxpayer. Yet they both consume about the same amount of taxpayer funded infrastructure and government services.
By your standards, the middle class taxpayer is destroying capitalism. The middle class taxpayer is sucking away resources from the rich taxpayer. And heck, consider the poor non-taxpayer. That class totally rides on the higher income earners.
Do you get it? Everyone contributes in varying amounts, in different ways. But the bedrock of it all is educated and trained people. Society has a vested interest in a large pool of educated and trained people.
Actually, that's simply not true. For example, police protection of property is worth ten times as much to a millionaire than it is to someone who has $100k, because the former has ten times as much to lose if theft is not suppressed.
That said, the current tax system is far too socialistically "progressive" (which is a problem unrelated to the issue that spawned this thread).
"That’s a very limited view. Is your entire role in society to be a consumer? Sounds like a welfare queen to me. Producers, on the other hand, need inputs. They need trained and talented people."
Yes, producers are consumers and consumers are producers. It is up to the individuals to ensure they acquire the talents that are in demand, it is not the responsibility of "society at large." If you believe that to be the case, then the next step of assigning folks to certain fields through the use of government force is just as worthy of support.
The rest of your post misses a very distinct difference. I am not anti school, I am not anti children and I am not anti family. I am against the Federal government's role in these things today. The involvement of the government is nothing but legalized theft to fund an inefficient system to meet the needs of our economy.
The only reason the original article has any merit is becuase of the failure of socialist programs. The failure socialism will most likely lead to fascism, as witnessed by any reader of this thread.
You asked how this authors premise is more harmful, well think for a moment. We have instituted legalized theft to fund a failing public system, we are taking money from everyone to ensure we protect the educational system from the market. We then expect the students to perform at equal levels, we do this by holding back the entire class to the slowest performer.
We also have a retirement plan that started out as a plan to help those that have fallen on hard times, now people expect to live off the government when they turn 65. This system is about to implode and all the good sheeple would rather just tell everyone to have children to make sure the scheme is funded long enough to support them.
I have heard your arguments, and I have heard Medveds. I have yet to see how government support of children is either constitutional, right or successful. The concept of individual responsibility and market responses would have our country in a much better place today than either public education or SS.