How soon before the next step to privatising the state schools?

Why do you keep banging that same drum

Becuase I believe in it fervently and won't be dissuaded by the people who think money can buy education?

The whole point of what everyone is saying is that state education should be funded well enough so that every child has the opportunity to reach their potential.

But it is not and leaving the provision of education to market forces makes it ever more unlikely that it will be.

volver oh I understand your posts, I just do not agree with them.

GagaJo

Isn't it because if we just pretend there is infinite money Maizie, that that is what creates inflation?

See. I wasn't being awkward about my lack of logic. I honestly don't understand.

It's not a question of pretending, GagaJo. The state can actually create money. This is a fact. It is a fact that has been known for along time. The 'pretend' comes in when politicians like Thatcher tell you that a country's finances are just like a household's, or a company's. It isn't, because neither of them can create pounds sterling. A government can.

Inflation has more than on cause. Sometimes it is because there is a scarcity of goods and resources to purchase. Sometimes it's because there is too much money in the domestic economy which can lead to traders putting up their prices to 'what the market can bear', and sometimes it is because the prices of stuff we import are increased, as in the 1970s when OPEC whacked up the price of oil, and now, when gas and oil prices have been massively increased.

Taxation takes excess money out of the economy to prevent the first two. (It can't do anything about the third cause.) If it weren't for taxation we'd have a situation like Wiemar Germany.

In any case, the idea that taxation alone funds spending, apart from not being true, is ridiculous because the state does have other revenue sources.

I think we are now going round in circles. No one has said they don't think education should be well funded. Most of those who have experience directly or indirectly of the Public/Independent/Private system seem often to have been in and out between the systems, using the state system as well.

My question was about the privatisation of the state system. Yet those who seem to think they are the only ones who care have gone on, and on about the tiny percentage, at any one time, of those making a different choice. There is no logic to that. I shall continue to worry about the state system while they have a fight with fresh air.

GrannyGravy13

volver oh I understand your posts, I just do not agree with them.

Oh you are, of course, quite entitled to disagree.

Even if you are wrong ?

DaisyAnne

I think we are now going round in circles. No one has said they don't think education should be well funded. Most of those who have experience directly or indirectly of the Public/Independent/Private system seem often to have been in and out between the systems, using the state system as well.

My question was about the privatisation of the state system. Yet those who seem to think they are the only ones who care have gone on, and on about the tiny percentage, at any one time, of those making a different choice. There is no logic to that. I shall continue to worry about the state system while they have a fight with fresh air.

I'm so sorry.

I didn't realise that expressing a heartfelt and strongly held belief was "going on and on". I guess that's how communists behave, is it?

The whole point of what everyone is saying is that state education should be funded well enough so that every child has the opportunity to reach their potential

But it is not We know

No-one on here is saying it should not be well funded.

Blaming independent schools is a red herring that is thrown up every time the subject comes up.

Isn't it funny that it comes up every time? It's almost like it's one of the actual real reasons, isn't it? Couldn't be, could it?

No.

It's because some people would deny others choice.

It's totalitarianism and doesn't work

I still don't understand the economics thing, but I am as certain as I can be that of course people being able to opt out of state education (and the NHS) means that funding is affected. It wouldn't be if, say, people with red hair, or Jehovah's Witnesses, or any other randomly spaced and financially representative group opted out - it is detrimental because it is people with the money to pay whose children are no longer in the system.

This means that (a) those parents no longer have a vested interest in ensuring the quality of state education, and (b) at least some of them will want to make sure that they are paying for something worth having, so actually have a vested interest in there being a gap between privately and state educated children. We see this played out when people who got degrees when they were rarer would like to deny them to the 'masses' and suggest that other people's kids should get apprenticeships or whatever - elitism only works when there are scarce resources allocated to a few.

Also, as has been pointed out, a disproportionate number of people in power have been privately educated, and this applies to those in charge of allocating funds to schools. If they know that they and theirs are going to be ok - in fact not just ok, but will have an advantage over those educated in state schools, then they have no incentive to ensure that state schools get more funding.

Then there is the 'old boys'/girls' network. Is it sheer coincidence that for the past 12 years so many Conservative Ministers have come from Eton? A statistical blip? Old school ties are not worn so that the wearers save money on buying new ones.

It's not about the choice to have oboe lessons, or to choose a smart blazer and shirt over a sweatshirt and anorak. It goes far deeper than that, and it's disingenuous to pretend otherwise. Nobody is saying that all parents who use the private system are taking money out of the state one, but that the existence of a 2 tier sector absolutely does so.

Callistemon21

Doodledog

Ok, humour me?

I accept that Thatcher's household budget analogy was false, and I do know that the 'pay it back' mantra is a lie; but if tax doesn't fund spending, what does? And if we all stopped paying tax, what would happen? And what would the long-term impact be if we had too much money in the economy?

Also, why do all parties perpetuate an untruth? Wouldn't it make sense for someone to point out the naked emperor?

Yes, it does sound like one person's reasoning against another.
And I do think I know whose reasoning that is (Richard Murphy?)

I still think if our tax money goes towards reclaiming the money which it spends into the economy then it is being spent on public services.

Maybe I'll ask my DN, she will explain it all from a B of E viewpoint.

Calliistemon

If you think I'm stupid enough to take one person's word as gospel truth on this subject then I feel quite insulted.

I was introduced to this by reading Murphy's blog, certainly, but I didn't believe it at first, either. Since then I have read as widely as I can on the whole subject and I can assure you that it encompasses a lot of other economists and thinkers on the subject.

I have published countless links (including a few today) which explain it, few of which people ever bother to read. These links include articles from the Bank of England; if people won't believe the BoE what more can I do?

I do publish links to Murphy's blog because he is a good communicator who explains things well, but he's not my sole source of information.

But then, perhaps you have a fully worked out theory of where a state's money comes from? Which explains why all our money originates from the Bank of England (or banks under licence from the BoE to create money) and then explains why the government needs to tax before it can spend. I'd like to hear it.

Rather than posting links, would you please answer my questions in your own words, simplified if necessary, so that if my little brain doesn't grasp it, I can get back to you?

I would genuinely like to understand.

GrannyGravy13

I am yet to be convinced that the existence of fee paying schools prevents governments (of any colour) adequately funding state schools.

I'm guessing you understand the theory. But choose to disbelieve it.

To me, it's QED. Elite groups who don't need state education/healthcare etc don't care about the underfunding of them because they don't use them. Those in government who are mostly from those elite groups, even more so in the Conservatives, have little interest in funding the state. In fact, it forms part of their policy.

No, that's why I read your explanations, MaizieD, some of which are links to Murphy so it was an understandable assumption on my part.

But then, perhaps you have a fully worked out theory of where a state's money comes from?
What gave you that idea? Why would I need to ask if I know already?

Perhaps I'm like you - not stupid enough to read something on an internet forum and take it as gospel truth so I thought that asking a relative who worked at the B of E might help me understand better.

Doodledog

Ok, humour me?

I accept that Thatcher's household budget analogy was false, and I do know that the 'pay it back' mantra is a lie; but if tax doesn't fund spending, what does? And if we all stopped paying tax, what would happen? And what would the long-term impact be if we had too much money in the economy?

Also, why do all parties perpetuate an untruth? Wouldn't it make sense for someone to point out the naked emperor?

I'm trying very hard to point out the naked emperor but so many people believe he's still wearing gorgeous clothes.

If we all stopped paying tax there's be so much money sloshing around in the economy that we'd be using wheelbarrows full to pay for things.

Or we might start using another unit of exchange because our money was worthless.

Or we might stop going to work because we didn't need any more money...

But the money has to get into the economy first, via government spending, before the government can get anything back.

When the government doesn't spend (remember Osborne's austerity, cutting government spending to the bone?) the country becomes poorer and people become poorer because they lose their jobs and they lose their businesses because people can't afford to buy their goods or services.

GagaJo

GrannyGravy13

I am yet to be convinced that the existence of fee paying schools prevents governments (of any colour) adequately funding state schools.

I'm guessing you understand the theory. But choose to disbelieve it.

To me, it's QED. Elite groups who don't need state education/healthcare etc don't care about the underfunding of them because they don't use them. Those in government who are mostly from those elite groups, even more so in the Conservatives, have little interest in funding the state. In fact, it forms part of their policy.

Are you saying that all Tory MPs send their children to independent schools?

I know that is not so.

Thank you.

Ok, I get the bit about needing to create a shortage of money or it would be worthless and there would be no incentive to work.

I also get the bit about money not circulating meaning that the economy suffers (as well as the people, which is why I wouldn't vote Tory if my life depended on it).

The bit I don't understand is the bit about money getting back into the economy first before the govt can get it back.

If all we need to have a fully functioning NHS and education system is money, why would the government ensure that they have less of it? What is stopping them from spending more, and (more importantly, as this is the bit I really don't understand) what is the bit in the middle? The bit where they have to stop money becoming worthless, but also stop the country becoming poor because of Austerity? Is that where taxation comes in? Or if not, what is it?

Callistemon21

No, that's why I read your explanations, MaizieD, some of which are links to Murphy so it was an understandable assumption on my part.

But then, perhaps you have a fully worked out theory of where a state's money comes from?
What gave you that idea? Why would I need to ask if I know already?

Perhaps I'm like you - not stupid enough to read something on an internet forum and take it as gospel truth so I thought that asking a relative who worked at the B of E might help me understand better.

One of which was a link to Murphy.

All I asked initially was a simple question.

'If the government, via the Boe, creates our money, why does it need to tax it back before it can spend anything?

If you had the power to create money would you give it all away and then ask the person you'd given it to for some back because you needed their money to buy things with?

Callistemon21

GagaJo

GrannyGravy13

I am yet to be convinced that the existence of fee paying schools prevents governments (of any colour) adequately funding state schools.

I'm guessing you understand the theory. But choose to disbelieve it.

To me, it's QED. Elite groups who don't need state education/healthcare etc don't care about the underfunding of them because they don't use them. Those in government who are mostly from those elite groups, even more so in the Conservatives, have little interest in funding the state. In fact, it forms part of their policy.

Are you saying that all Tory MPs send their children to independent schools?

I know that is not so.

I said much the same thing as GagJo, so I will answer.

No, not all Tory MPs send their children, but the ones who don't live in a catchment of a decent state school will. So will Labour MPs because both groups know that the odds of getting a better education, contacts etc in a private school are much higher. Which is the point. If that were not the case, and if everyone had to use the state system, the rich and powerful would ensure that it was good for everyone.

Doodledog

Thank you.

Ok, I get the bit about needing to create a shortage of money or it would be worthless and there would be no incentive to work.

I also get the bit about money not circulating meaning that the economy suffers (as well as the people, which is why I wouldn't vote Tory if my life depended on it).

The bit I don't understand is the bit about money getting back into the economy first before the govt can get it back.

If all we need to have a fully functioning NHS and education system is money, why would the government ensure that they have less of it? What is stopping them from spending more, and (more importantly, as this is the bit I really don't understand) what is the bit in the middle? The bit where they have to stop money becoming worthless, but also stop the country becoming poor because of Austerity? Is that where taxation comes in? Or if not, what is it?

Thanks, Doodledog

If all we need to have a fully functioning NHS and education system is money, why would the government ensure that they have less of it? What is stopping them from spending more

The only answer I have for this is that the government is made up of individuals who either believe the 'household budget' myth or who would prefer that government money is directed to enterprises that increase the wealth of themselves and their donors and cronies. Like in the pandemic.

Spending on education, health etc is very good for lots of businesses in the domestic economy but it doesn't make the sort of spectacular profits for a few that some enterprises would love.

Money would become worthless if there was nothing left to spend it on. As it is, we all know that there are lots of things it could be spent on, like education, health, renewable energy, helping the disadvantaged. But if a government is ideologically opposed to doing this, they won't do it.

I keep banging on about this because I think that once people understand that government spending choices are constrained by ideology, not by a finite amount of money, voters could make more informed and better choices when it comes to choosing a government.

It's obviously much more complex than this, any economy needs careful management, but the basic premise, that taxes aren't needed to fund government spending is based on reality and gives us a whole new way of looking at things.

Austerity was a deliberate choice and made the country poorer. It was based on flawed economic theory. That 'the market' was the perfect regulator of an economy.

volver

Isn't it funny that it comes up every time? It's almost like it's one of the actual real reasons, isn't it? Couldn't be, could it?

No. It's simply your opinion. What you are trying to say is that we must accept your opinion as "fact". It isn't a fact. It is something you expect others to believe because you want it to be true. You've persuaded no one; offered no evidence. But still you insist that others must be made to do what you want. Round and round you go.

Doodledog

Rather than posting links, would you please answer my questions in your own words, simplified if necessary, so that if my little brain doesn't grasp it, I can get back to you?

I would genuinely like to understand.

Do you know how much time and effort that takes? Maizie has done just that over and over again. Get up off your backside (metaphorically) and follow the links if you would "genuinely like to understand". Otherwise, this becomes just a wind-up.

DaisyAnne

volver

Isn't it funny that it comes up every time? It's almost like it's one of the actual real reasons, isn't it? Couldn't be, could it?

No. It's simply your opinion. What you are trying to say is that we must accept your opinion as "fact". It isn't a fact. It is something you expect others to believe because you want it to be true. You've persuaded no one; offered no evidence. But still you insist that others must be made to do what you want. Round and round you go.

Please desist from trying to say that when I express my strongly held opinions that I am insisting that others agree with me.

Do you not understand how discussions work? Are you so unsure of your opinions that you think anyone who disagrees with them is browbeating you?

Please, stop it. It's silly.

Clearly Maizie didn't think so, as she has explained. It is not enough for people to keep saying the same things and referring others to links. If we don't understand, then it is far better to hear a concept from someone who does, clearly expressed, so that they can have a dialogue. It's the basis on which education works. Just posting a reading list is never going to cut it.

And there is no need for the "". If I understand something I don't pretend not to, and nor do I post to wind people up?.

Thanks, Maizie. I'm going out in a minute, but will read your reply more carefully and get back to you.

Sorry, that was also to DaisyAnne, but referring to a different post.