Imagine if governmental funding of education were increased as an alternative to regulation starting with teaching everyone more about how to avoid exploitation. Would that work? Could such a position possibly unite libertarians and liberals?

I can identify with the goal you seem to have in mind but mandated curriculum for the public schools
(even if fully funded by the Feds) is not a strategy I could support.

We already have a mandated curriculum for the public schools. It's mainly geared towards making everyone administrative assistants, accountants, and lab technicians.

This would just be a new focus for economics. Economics as it's taught now is only focused on making money. It's only geared toward the small percentage of business owners in this country. This would broaden the focus and gear it towards the average citizens making smarter economic decisions, not just for themselves, but for the overall economy. We can't afford to live off individualistic economics anymore.

I think both libertarians and liberal progressives would agree that the common problem is exploitation. Libertarians would probably call it stupidity, but either way, education is the solution.

It's too bad most of the libertarians have left this forum. I'm especially interested in their take. Once they come to the realization that some form of government is required, they may consider education the better alternative to regulation.

I'm not a true libertarian. I guess I might be a liberalterian. I'll find out what that means and let you know.

Are you thinking that education could replace regulation because people would be taught that there is more to the economy than the profit motive - that there also is value in "sharing" and equality?

I think the country was founded on economic freedom as well as political freedom. It is too ingrained in our national psyche, and I have shared that I think man is competitive by nature.

Libertarians probably wouldn't want a forced curriculum or regulation. But my opinion would be that it is not the business of schools to have an ideology. They should present all sides. I think it might be a good idea for everyone to take an accounting class! Some people are clueless in managing money. Teaching individual responsibility would go a long way toward national responsibility.

It IS the business of government, in my opinion, to regulate economic behavior to keep things from heaving too violently from one extreme to the other and to try to make the playing field as fair as possible.

What a coincidence. On 60 minutes they are proposing alcohol education and licensing to lower the drinking age. That's an example of education as the alternative to regulation.

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4819332n

Not necessarily sharing, but how not to get exploited and how to keep the economy at large sustainable or growing. The latter is something that everyone could agree benefits us all, except for those interested in economic treason.

We would still need regulation but I think money management should be taught in schools. Especially how to recognize a shyster and a ponzi scheme when you see one. The big cowboy hat the expensive suit the phony down home drawl, the flag lapel pin and their tendency to suddenly and uncontrollably break into this song (My apologies in advance to all the many good people I know who live in Texas.);

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mNDHTfdn1A...feature=related

It would be opposed by the entire Gang Of Pirates and fanatical RW "Christians" because it might interfere with the distribution of wealth as indicatior God's favor or disfavor.

Just my opinion.

You are spot on, TROU. The RW "Christian" Fundies actually DO BELIEVE that you are either in God's grace or you are not.

AND YOU DESERVE IT.

Actually, it is geared to mid-19th century goals of RRR for farmers moving to the city for the factory jobs that no longer exist. COLLEGE was geared toward CPAs and managers, and those jobs are largely leaving, too.

What we need is a MORE BROAD, ARTISTIC, curriculum (all the goodies that have been cut out) so that children can find their passion.

Because if you are doing something you are passionate about, you will never work a day in your life.

True.

Schools could also be honest about the downside of capitalism without calling it "greed." They should also teach the fact that our money system is based on spiraling debt.

I don't expect the Republicans to adopt education as the alternative to regulation. It's libertarians that I'm interested in. Libertarians now believe that they will get big government with either Democrats or Republicans in charge. They still vote for Republicans who preach smaller government, but don't practice what they preach.

Libertarians are basically anarchists of the dollar. They are liberal on social issues as long as those issues don't result in government programs that cost them money. But sooner or later they will have to come back to the reality that some governing will be required. If they have to choose between regulation or education, I think they will pick education because it is more friendly to freedom of choice.

It's not about big government vs small government:

It's about GOOD government vs INCOMPETENT government.

Well stated.

I appoligize for what was intended to be additive to the discussion, which turned out to be substractive by deflecting attention from the Key Idea...the distinction between, "Mandating
Curriculum" and, "Mandating a process for local educational entities to construct a curriculum," is
real relevant to the goal of using Education and Training to prevent the need for coercive regulations
and enforcement...This class of Interventions in the Social System is comming to be refered to as a Wellness Approach...thus the need to add Wellness to Peace and Prosperity, as a statement of National Goals...

Good Government = Open/Honest and Competent

Bad Government = Corruption and Incompetence

No need to apologize. This thread wasn't getting much attention anyway. It does raise important questions about the differences between mandating curriculum and a mandated process for constructing a curriculum. I do think that we have mandated curriculum already. It's just that we don't re-evaluate the usefulness of what is mandated often enough. But you are correct. The distinction and the various subject matters that might be mandated as curriculum might be a topic for another thread.

Whether you call it a mandated curriculum or a modification of an already (at least locally) mandated curriculum (economics), that's what I'm proposing.

Actually the problem goes further back than school curriculums to the under-developed interface
between our levels of Government. These kind of issues need to be worked out and funded at
the National level (with input from all levels & domains) and Administered at the Family and Community Level. The Constitution does not explicitly confer any authority on the Federal Government for Education. We need a person-centered, community-based, state and federally
guaranteed Education System...What we have is a very loose confederation of local School
Systems, funded mostly with local property taxes and State Level Sales Taxes. The only ways we have for improving them is through Professional influence from the Teacher Training Universities
and Professional Organizations and the Federal Grants Management System.

Quite true.

I just thought of a name for the course. "Exploitative Economics 101: What not to do, and what not to fall for."

The curriculum is set by states and local school boards already and not the federal government...

I think a course in personal economics might be a wise addition to the curriculum...but there would have to be an incentive from the federal government or schools would balk at the suggestion...

The bottom line is that with just about all new policy decisions in the area of education it comes down to money...

I do not think so...because I do not believe that libertarians would support a mandated course offering...

We are reaping the fruits of unregulated capitalism. It is like trying to play the World Series without umpires. If the batter swings and misses, it's a strike and the game goes on. If the batter takes a close pitch over the outside corner with a 3-2 count and the bases loaded, both benches will empty and there will be a free-for-all.

You need a supervisor to watch over the game.

If they knew that the alternative was mandated regulation of their imagined "perfect free market," I think they would support education as the less intrusive solution. As of now they think they can have their cake and eat it too. Eventually they will wake up, if this failure due to lack of regulation hasn't woke them already. But of course some will blame what little regulations we had as causing the problem.

My hero Barbara Jordan concluded that while religion should not be taught in school, ethics must be taught in school. I agree that it must be taught, but it will never replace regulation because a small percentage of people succumb to their baser motivations even if they know it's wrong. A bit of a smaller percentage simply never cared anyway, and passed their ethics education by cheating or lying.

Oh, and corporations have no ethics anyway and that's where the real problems begin.

I am apposed to legislating any specific curricula.

You may have misinterpreted what I suggested. I'm not suggesting that ethics education would substitute for regulation against exploitation. I'm suggesting exploitation awareness education would reduce the effectiveness of exploitation, thus making regulation less needed. It's not about making perpetrators more ethical. It's about making potential victims less vulnerable by making them smarter. It's a different approach to economic teaching, consumer-oriented, not just business-oriented.

An interesting idea...I am a strong proponent of education. I am just uncertain that a federal mandate is the appropriate way to achieve this goal.

Maybe it is...

And the other concern is that while it might be great to begin educating our children...it would likely take 10 to 40 years before any noticeable impact occurs...

Now, just becuse the journey is long does not mean that it might not be worthwhile to take it...but why would this not become an issue of discussion in the context of Obama's education proposal?

In the 1970's my first wife who had been teaching typing and shorthand in high school went back to graduate school
and got a Specialist Degree in Consumer Education and was teaching courses in this at Gramling College at the
time she lost her life in an auto accident. I don't know to what extent this field continued to develop but I do know
that some school systems have a half year of Consumer Education combined with a half year of Career Development.

If this wikipedia description is correct, then it's two individualistic. It should be a Consumer/Citizen education with focus on the overall economy as well as the individual, the part-whole relationship.

My hero Barbara Jordan concluded that while religion should not be taught in school, ethics must be taught in school. I agree that it must be taught, but it will never replace regulation because a small percentage of people succumb to their baser motivations even if they know it's wrong. A bit of a smaller percentage simply never cared anyway, and passed their ethics education by cheating or lying.

Oh, and corporations have no ethics anyway and that's where the real problems begin.[/quote]You may have misinterpreted what I suggested. I'm not suggesting that ethics education would substitute for regulation against exploitation. I'm suggesting exploitation awareness education would reduce the effectiveness of exploitation, thus making regulation less needed. It's not about making perpetrators more ethical. It's about making potential victims less vulnerable by making them smarter. It's a different approach to economic teaching, consumer-oriented, not just business-oriented.
[/quote]

An interesting idea...I am a strong proponent of education. I am just uncertain that a federal mandate is the appropriate way to achieve this goal.

Maybe it is...

And the other concern is that while it might be great to begin educating our children...it would likely take 10 to 40 years before any noticeable impact occurs...

Now, just becuse the journey is long does not mean that it might not be worthwhile to take it...but why would this not become an issue of discussion in the context of Obama's education proposal?
[/quote]

In the 1970's my first wife who had been teaching typing and shorthand in high school went back to graduate school
and got a Specialist Degree in Consumer Education and was teaching courses in this at Gramling College at the
time she lost her life in an auto accident. I don't know to what extent this field continued to develop but I do know
that some school systems have a half year of Consumer Education combined with a half year of Career Development.
[/quote]If this wikipedia description is correct, then it's two individualistic. It should be a Consumer/Citizen education with focus on the overall economy as well as the individual, the part-whole relationship.
[/quote]

Yes, most school systems are making some attempts at teaching consumer education.They just aren't doing it
very well. At least two thirds of the schools don't do very well at teaching anything very well. Text book companies
are the curriculum developers. Building principles are the Boss Man of the operation. About a third of the teachers
manage to cope with a sick system and still do a good job of educating the one third of the student body that is
prepared to receive an education. If this were not the case, the country wouldn't be in such the terrible state that
it is in--about to fall off the clift.