[Ultimate Newbie]

Originally Posted by All Systems Go

Apart from that being a completely flawed arguement,* it is also wrong. Over the past 30 years there has been a concerted effort to deconstruct the welfare state. When cuts in in the welfare state are made, who do you think benefits? Does cutting the level of unemployment benefit to fund a tax cut on the very rich benefit everyone?

Cuts to the "welfare state" have in many respects improved the economy in Australia, and benefits many people. I acknowledge that its probable that more "rich" people benefited and more "poor" people were worse off, by and large "middle australia*" has improve in leaps and bounds after shedding bureaucratic bollocks and benefiting from a period of economic growth where virtually everyone who is looking for work can find it. I have four jobs, studying my Honours at Uni - and WA's unemployment rate is about 2% with ~4.5% nationally. I believe that there is more benefit for people having a job than being a "dole bludger", and not only because of the way it affects the state's finances; quite a bit of research shows that being unemployed for long periods is psychologically damaging. Welfare states that Europe has seems to prolong and increase the proportion of long-term unemployed, presumably leading to more psychological damage to less employable people (which are usually the poorest people with the least skills, and/or people who are somehow unfit for normal work, neither of whom can afford anything resembling proper psychological treatment).

All that aside, the argument that reduced spending on social welfare immediately and only benefits the rich through a tax cut clearly doesnt follow. If anything, in Australia, social welfare is still too high, with "middle class welfare" being the means for considerable electoral success for the previous commonwealth government - "sorting out" that kind of crap needs to be done, imo, as its a waste of money. Welfare should go to those who need it, not to those whose votes need buying.

*unlike britain, middle australia is a huge proportion of the population due to being more or less un-stratified (at worst, there are three rough classes based on wealth, not birth).

The idea of trickle down economics is plain wrong.

It is, and it isnt. There wasnt all that much success in India in the late 70's and 80's, but in other instances where the limitiations of such a policy were well known and used in a proper framework which sought to minimise harm from such a policy (ie, doing it "right"), has helped other economies quite a bit. iirc, New Zealand experienced this in the late 80's to mid 90's. I might need to go check that.

The intellectual justification that the increased prosperity of the rich will eventually 'trickle down' to the poorer people has been shown to be a load of nonsense. Yet it is still advocated by those who can afford to remove themselves from society which continues to decay (at a fster rate) as a direct result of their dogmatic self-justification for self-enriching policies.

Your "the upper classes have us all done in for" ranting aside, trickle down approaches depend on the specific circumstances. The greatest gains are had when corporate and small business taxation/regulations are improved, which has the impact that those who work in and for and/or own those businesses become richer. imo, small businesses are more important than is usually taken credit for, but finding good data to prove it is hard (generally, its all biased). In australia, much of the people in the top tax brackets are actually small business owners as there is no distinction between their individual self and the business entity. I thought this was the same for britain, but then i suppose its just easier to blame the rich people for everyone's misery.

The education system maintains the staus quo.

In terms of social classes? Perhaps in Britain it does - i think i read somewhere that 7% of all schoolkids attend "public schools", however those 7% form 45% or so of all university entrants (with the remainder being those government schools who can discriminate by marks). In that case, yes i can see such a poor system doing nothing. In australia, this isnt the case. Private schools (similar to british public schools, but arent) are more likely to get kids into uni, but - once there - Public schoolkids are more likely to graduate. Either way, a large number of people i know at uni are from the normal state education system. Could their families afford Private schooling? probably not, and thus in Australia kids who are more or less intelligent and/or willing to work hard are able to achieve social mobility (defined as going to uni - still not sure if Arts students qualify ) if they are so inclined.

My point is, its not the same in every country. Generally its shit in britain, but then that's the point of having the UK in all measurements.

Getting an education can help you to get a better job and may help the economy but these are very narrow aims and should not be what an education system is about.

I think that is a contentious issue. Schooling should provide the person with the skills that they will need to find and keep a job, preferably in the field(s) to which they aspire to be involved in. Most jobs require some degree of human interaction and thus interpersonal skills. Most jobs require basic knowledge of mathematics, communication, and the ability to think for oneself. Anything that isnt menial labour requires specific technical training, from carpentry to medicine, which is usually to cumbersome to do at (secondary) school. Once out of school, having any school based qualifications become more or less irrelevant as previous occupations become paramount in consideration.

There is no attempt to develop emotionally secure, well-rounded human beings with an ability to think critically. The main purpose is to mould children into a mediocrity or to implant a mindset of 'the establishment' or at least to crush an impulse to question authority or to reject what is being taught.

I suppose, in australia, there isnt much point in teaching kids to "question authority", as being a larikin is a mainstay of our popular culture. BUt there is some limit to teaching kinds to 'thinking critically' - generally by some limited attention spans, plus the general vagueness of the topic makes it hard to teach and learn. An educations system that is grounded in practicality is important, imo, otherwise Art departments at uni get waaay over the top.

Imo, you need to stop reading Orwell and et al, and get out and smell the roses. Apparently there are quite a few in Britain. Dont be so bloody dour and generally shit.

Well, i do suppose it could be the weather.

Well, apart from answering your own question you seem to be missing the most obvious effect of going to a publich school. It reinforces the class system. The chances of you going to a secondary school and reaching the upen echelons of political power, for example a virtually zero. The whole system breeds inequality of oppertunity.

As i have already stated at length, this is not the case in Australia nor the case for the ideal education system (which Australia's is not). around 35% of students in australia go to private schools, and i suppose half of all domestic uni students are from private schools. But that doesnt consider technical colleges (called TAFE) which provides training in "the trades" like plumbing etc.

What really enforces the class system is not attending school, not being motivated whilst there, and doing **** all work. If you then blame the state or the rich or others for your squandered opportunity and personal failure, then all you do is make yourself more miserable.

I was trying to convey the fact that these areas are already falling apart and that the concentration of more poor people into smaller, more concentrated areas (which is a direct result of this redevelopment) would make life for the poor worse, rather than better.

The plight of the poorest in all societies - that there are always too many placed too close together and generally neglected - is essentially a constant. Nothing you say is new, or is likely to change significantly. The welfare state definitely doesnt help, given that britain has massive slums. The free market of the US doesnt help, given their situation is perhaps worse. Former "communist" countries, everyone was living in a slum. Your whining about the plight of people doesnt stop it from happening. What are you going to do about it?