Nick: You have a point. Also when you earlier wrote about European borders being quite recent - that is true, and not to forget. It doesn't mean that the countries involved are more alike, just that the borders have shifted many times during the years - and they still do. Mostly to divide the land in smaller entities and strengthen the local ... things.
Look at Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia (sp`??) etc. Look at Scandinavia, which just little more than 100 years ago looked quite different because Norway belonged to Sweden. A little longer ago, Finland did too. Now these three states are three very separated and different states.

I don't think anyone wants to go back to one big state. We don't want an United States of Europe. We want our countries to be what they are, but we still want to be friends, to have peace, freedom and openness.

..and we all want to be as rich as possible..

oh, I forgot.

What's the point in freedom of movement if it's the same everywhere?
Where is the fun in living and working in another country if it's the same as home?

If it is made easy by a common currency and the security in knowing that even if I get sick or whatever, I am fully insured and will get the same care for the same money as I would at home, then - isn't that the best?

I never said I disagreed with any of that my point is the free flow of goods and larger markets, with cheaper labor and a larger currency is the underlying reason

just becuase it is taught in gov't controlled schools does not mean it is true

This is fun! I never knew that I was this enthusiastic about EU before!

Anyway, I had to find some way to back up what I wrote. Look here:

quote:

One of the fundamental ideas was that countries that cooperate and depend on each other would have no desire to go to war with each other. It was in this spirit that the European Coal and Steel Community was set up in 1952.

- this comes from this site; the European Information Centre entrusted by the Swedish government.

quote:

just becuase it is taught in gov't controlled schools does not mean it is true

Stepping on really thin ice now Cilento...

Why is that such a bad statement? The schools here in the US are the same way. Taking a class or curriculum does nto account for the teacher interpreation/ beliefs nor does it accont for the bias

the point is knoweledge should be gain though disccussion , research , history....not from a controleldd centrel place ( washington DC for example

Ok, I am definitely not qualified to discuss American schools.
From what I know though, and what I have learned from earlier discussions between people who worry about choosing a "good" school, I would say that there are a whole lot of differences between US and Europe when it comes to schools.

Also. It was only 10 years ago that we in Sweden had a VERY heated debate in media because of the EU votation. The debate has never stopped, and it is getting quite intense again now because of the EU constitution, last years votation about EMU etc.
So it's not like I have all my opinions because of something I learned in school thirty years ago. I'm not even old enough for that.

Second, my sister who just graduated as a teacher (science/maths, but still!) would be pretty upset with your statement.

uh, is votation a word? Election can not be it, because it's not about choosing a person... what is the right term?

Cilento, the control can come to a HUGE mumber of sources, not just governments. Why should corporations not control the information and culture more strictly than the governments (especially western, democratic government)? Corporations have different goals, maybe, but they control the culture even more strictly, especially when it comes to scientific and tenchnological culture. They fund certain researches and not others: insn't this a very strict control? Freedom, in culture, is achieved through the freedom of teachers, and this is best granted where and when the money comes from the community (through the government because this is one superstructure that we seem unable to get rid of NOW, hopefully in the future...) and it's community controlled rather where and when the money comes from corporations and lobbies that are controlled by a very small group of people who care only about their own interests.

Most teachers in the US get upset by the statment but it is true. Their unions have a monoply on the school system. only rich kids have a choice ( We are nto all rich here) the quality of the American student has deteriorated in the pasrt 40 years as school shave been taken over by the Dept of education, forcing curriculum and behavior and disciple rather than Math Science and English

A generation ago, schools taught merit and acheivemnt, now kids don't know where Utah is

slipping down the slop but that is a different topic

Original point

it all comes down to money alway s has always will and they will try to sell it differently

Well, there's your answer. Rich or poor, all children in Europe get the same education. Education is not a question of money here. That's the good thing about a communal school.

Alice

I believe freedom in culture is choice, feee markets are the ultimate form a of choice, if a school is doing a bad job of teaching children thereparents shoudl be able to chose to send them elsewhere govt' schools don't allow that

The mandate ( force) parents to send them to schools that fail to educate them. I contend that teachers are not free... go against the union lose your job. speak out for school choice lose your job.. is that freedom?

Corporations are different they have to answer to shareholders, and more importantly customer. if they fail to do so they are out of business

I want a society of choice and ownership society where peopel trade vaule for vaule, where the biggest consumers ar enot gov't but the people living inthose societies, people who are accountable for their actions and

The US had that Once a long time ago

Annika,


I guess if a general mediocrity is what you are striving for then that is OK.

Free markets are the ultimae form of dictatorship because they disguise the limits to freedom placed by unequal distribution of richness as freedom. Popular control, distributed and not centralized, that respects the different opinions of everyone, a fair distribution of richness (to delete poverty), and open particupation to all levels of the political life are the ultimate freedom. Without control there is no freedom, without participation there is no control, without economical equality there is no participation because there is no equal access to (cultural) resources.

Please Cilento. Do not talk about things you know nothing about. When you DO know anything about the level of education here, then speak. I am not saying that we know more or less than Americans because I don't know what is or is not taught in American schools. I seriously doubt that you know what is or is not taught in European schools.

I didn't say that communal schools are all good. I only said that one good thing about them is that it does not matter if the children were born by rich parents or poor parents, it does not matter however the children's parents have connections or not. I personally think that is a damn good thing.

quote:

Originally posted by Cilento:
Alice

I believe freedom in culture is choice, feee markets are the ultimate form a of choice, if a school is doing a bad job of teaching children thereparents shoudl be able to chose to send them elsewhere govt' schools don't allow that

quote:

Originally posted by Cilento:

only rich kids have a choice

Okay you've lost me. Which of the above is true? Both can't be. Either Americans have no choice. Or they do have choice.

They both can't be true.

If you're claiming only the rich are able to afford good schools. Well I say welcome to the free market. They value school enough to pay for them. Isn't that exactly what you want? The rich will always be able to afford better everything. That's the definition of rich.

Alice

the free market (choice) is the ulimtate voice of the poor

Free markets drive prices down, creates wealth for the worker, provides inncecntive and innovation to newmarkets, provides better halth care business drive the product price down for the consumer they want their bsuiness, chaper ropices mean more resources, more wealth, ecomonoc growth

Free markets with ties to gov't control is another thing when companies can make a gov't go to war I am against

I once met a former soviet farmer who came to the USA. HE opened his own farm here,. cows

He was exhausted from staying up all night to save the birth of one of his cows. Then proceeded to say how in the USSR he would never stay up to save a cow because it did not effect his production or pay whereas if a cow of his died in his new farm it effected his livelhood.

Nick

I want compettion in schools

Where is the copmpetiton in school now Compettion drives costs down forces better decsions and does not send tax money to buerocrats but to students

Just liekthe phone companies in the 1970' in the US top broadband internet It is cheap here calling France is 2 cents a minute over an IP phone compettion creates choice

Annika

My argument is not what or who knows more in schools it is choice in schools vs a centralized school system

Don't you have competition in schools in US? How's that working for ya?
Competition in schools will ultimately lead to better education for kids with rich parents, and - in the worst case - no education at all for kids with poor parents.

I'm not rich. I want my son to get a good education, so that he, when he gets older, can choose to study on the university if he wants to - whether his parents have gotten rich until then or not.

We do not have school compettion here in the US Not at all

I agree Education is a public good. I don't see how school choice leads to kids with no education? School choiuce competiton lets the kids in the bad school go to a school with good credentials

Please explain

How does it differ from what happens here in Europe? We just allow more promising children to be able to reach the topmost levels of education by giving them even more space. Bad students, believe me, in Italy never get to the university, the few that do are usually the products of (certain) private schools: not better schools, just schools that care more about how much do the parents pay in fees than in educating their students. I know more than a few of these children, who never did ood in public schools (because they were lazy, mind you!) until their parents pulled from the public system and threw thìm into one of these private schools: they did get their high school degree, but they are awfully ignorant, and usually "break their teeth" as soon as they get at the university. I just know too many of these to be fond of private schooling.

quote:

Originally posted by Cilento:
Nick

I want compettion in schools

Where is the copmpetiton in school now Compettion drives costs down forces better decsions and does not send tax money to buerocrats but to students

Just liekthe phone companies in the 1970' in the US top broadband internet It is cheap here calling France is 2 cents a minute over an IP phone compettion creates choice

You end up with Walmart schools. You'll be hard pressed to find many cases that consumers pay for quality. They want cheaper cheaper cheaper.

The phone system is a good example. The quality of the phone system today is lousy. Not to mention prices for local calls have gone UP. What used to happen was businesses and other long distance users paid more and kept prices low for local callers. Urban callers also paid more and kept prices down for rural callers. While LD costs have gone down we still see urban users having to prop up rural phone users.

Hate to tell you but that internet thing. It was setup and funded by government money. It would never have happened without money from people like the US defense department. While it's been a long time since the US government paid most of the bills for the internet it would never have happened without government money.

quote:

Originally posted by Cilento:
We do not have school compettion here in the US Not at all

I agree Education is a public good. I don't see how school choice leads to kids with no education? School choiuce competiton lets the kids in the bad school go to a school with good credentials

First off, how long has it been since you've been in school? And where do you get off saying that public schools dont give good educations, and that only the rich get a good education? I have gone to public schools my entired life. My university degree was paid for completely by scholarships and loans, I am in no way rich, yet I got a pretty damn good education.

There is a lot of competition between schools in America. Haven't you ever heard of a family moving somewhere to be near "good schools?" Schools in different areas spend their money on different resources. Some schools get more donations than others from parents. Yet you are free to go to whatever public school you want. Even if you dont live in the district, you can petition to go to a school in a different district. They create competition by offering different programs at the different schools. My highschool was the "poor" highschool in town, yet we were the ones with the AP classes galore, and kids from the other highschool were constantly coming over to ours to take one or two of these classes. All the other "rich" -yet public mind you- high school had was newer football jerseys. Which some how I dont think improves the quality of the education.

It also depends a lot on how much effort you put into your studies. Whether or not someone knows where Utah is, isn't a result of the schools. It is taught in school. It is a result of the child not thinking it is important to remember it, and that often comes from the parents lack of involvement in the childs life, and in their studies. Parents need to be more forceful in letting their children know that a good education is important, and that getting C's is not okay. That has nothing to do with how much money they have, or what town they live in, or whether or not they go to a public or private school. It has to do with caring. and some parents just dont care. That's the their fualt, not the educational systems'.

Lori

It's not just a fault of theirs. Someimes it's a social fault. It's a vicious circle. My parents are poor, so I can just go so far in my studies because I need to get myself a job to help my family, so I can only get less paid jobs, and to scrounge enough money to sustain myself and my family I must work more hours, so I have less time to take care of my children's education: they will get lower marks and, anyhow, will have to leave school after high school degree because they have to help the family survive.