Govt 'covering up' school funding plan

[TheDemonLord]

The entire financial system relies on the confidence of human beings. It can be abused much more easily than a system that does not require money to function, so NOW will work becauseof humanities inate goodness.

I never said the current financial system is perfect, or without its flaws - I did however say it works regardless of whether people are nice to each other or not. which means it is a more robost system than NOW (which needs both the confidence of humans - all Systems require this, and Humans to be nice)

It wasn't dodged, you just didn't like the answer. Not everyone eats steak. Not everyone who can afford the finest of cuts is connoisseur enough to care which part of the cow they eat and would see those finest cuts as a waste, both in terms taste and in terms of value. Some people prefer rump. Some people simply don't care. You've had the question answered, you aren't going to get the fillet of answers you adore.

Arbitrarily, with a little value thrown in depending on whether the person who has produced the goods likes the cut of your jib.

Okay then - a real world example - there are 50 cuts of Eye Fillet availible - 100 people want them. In the current system, the price is increased to the point that supply equals demand - ie 50 people can afford to buy them, 50 people can't.

Same example in NOW - 50 steaks, 100 people - I want an answer more substantial/fully formed than 'they get given to the person the butcher likes' - as this basically opens the door to absolute corruption - where the consumer is held hostage by the whims of the producer/supplier

No, what privacy are you going to lose under NOW. You wanted accountability yet aren't prepared to be held accountable yourself?

I'll be more than happy too from day 1 of NOW being implemented. I will not only hold myself accountible, I will prove it for anyone to see. That way they can judge whether I'm financially taking the piss or not for themselves and deal with me on that basis should they wish.

You are damn straight I am not prepared to be held accountable to other people, they have no right to Judge me in the same way I have no right to judge them. The organisation needs to be accountable to the people - that is it. What you are insinuating is the classic entrapment line 'If you have nothing to hide, let us search your property without a warrant' which is why I called it 1984ism

How useful and abundant the resource is. That will probably be decided at community and country level. Your V8 will be offset by my little Nissan (sounds like you're compensating for something there) that I will hardly ever use as I will be working from home under NOW, as will a great many people.

My point is that how useful and abundant is entirely subject to perspective, to the raving Hippies, Petrol isn't abundant and should be limited to absolute necessity. To the Texas Oil Baron, Petrol is the most abundant stuff on the planet - come on in, use as much as you can pay for.

Scarred? Freudian slip? I have been in a similar position to yourself. They show no signs of wanting to change, yet when there are changes made they do change. Changing our environment and landing as much responsibility on the individual as possible as well as meeting all of a persons needs for free will likely bring out the good side and limit the "bad" behaviour. I see no reason not to think so... and I have come to that conclusions not only by direct observation but also using direct contact and asking the questions.

Human beings have earned and restored my faith.

Of course when situations are changed people change, however a system that requires them to change in order for it to work might need some evidence that they have changed - Especially given previous behaviour.

To use an analogy - would you let a pedophile babysit your kids alone on his word alone that he has changed? Or would you instead ask for proof that he is not a danger before you even contemplated letting him near your children?

[Ocean1]

That's interesting - I have run a core department in two high schools now and my budgets (the money we get to spend on teaching) has remained static for at least the last 4 years, so my question is where has all the extra spending gone? Not into the class room. This is not even taking into account rising prices - there is some fantastic stuff out there that would help with teaching and learning but most of it is expensive and I have to be very choosy about what I purchase. It would be nice to see some of the extra spending go into schools' operational budgets, ask any principal and they will tell you about their budgetting problems.

Search the rest of treasury's site, it's remarkably user friendly.

That data was inflation corrected.

And yes there are new toys available to every industry on the planet, a great many of which can improve productivity. I've no doubt some of them would improve results for you, but the problem your industry has is the insulation between the supplier and the end user. If there was a genuine market for high-tech schools then you should be able to offer that option to your clients. The fact that the education dept stands between you hurts both supplier and producer. Even private schools aren't fully funded by their clients, and the constraints that come with the top-up funding cripples any innovation.

Teachers are always bleating about the lack of resources, and they're always bleating about threats of performance based remuneration in any form. But you can't have your cake and eat it, and until there's some commercial link between supplier and consumer you'll never know what your clients think about your performance and your charges. Yes that's important.

[blue rider]

what ever, the future unemployed need not to know how to read n write n understand n such things...

http://localbodies-bsprout.blogspot....ds-public.html

[Ocean1]

what ever, the future unemployed need not to know how to read n write n understand n such things...

http://localbodies-bsprout.blogspot....ds-public.html

Yes, that was posted verbatim yesterday.

As was the information that we're spending more on education now than ever.

But as you say, "whatever", that obviously doesn't agree with your world-view and must be wrong.

Edit: and do try to get a handle on the cause/effect thing, the choice to not bother with reading and writing is what causes unemployment, not the other way around.

[mansell]

Search the rest of treasury's site, it's remarkably user friendly.

That data was inflation corrected.

And yes there are new toys available to every industry on the planet, a great many of which can improve productivity. I've no doubt some of them would improve results for you, but the problem your industry has is the insulation between the supplier and the end user. If there was a genuine market for high-tech schools then you should be able to offer that option to your clients. The fact that the education dept stands between you hurts both supplier and producer. Even private schools aren't fully funded by their clients, and the constraints that come with the top-up funding cripples any innovation.

Teachers are always bleating about the lack of resources, and they're always bleating about threats of performance based remuneration in any form. But you can't have your cake and eat it, and until there's some commercial link between supplier and consumer you'll never know what your clients think about your performance and your charges. Yes that's important.

This brings me back to the point that we should not treat education as a business, it should be a right for all people and as soon as you adopt the business model to it education becomes the privalige of the wealthy. Why should there be a commercial link? Can't we just aim for a highly educated population and leave all this talk about comparing it to industry out of the equation, of cause I am going to bleat on about being underfunded when my entire budget is what my signing rights were when I was 19 and working in industry. The reality is as soon as people start to talk about suppliers/consumers and market forces it worries me as there seems to be this attitude that people should be educated just so they can fit into a niche in the work place. With a well educated population we can make advances as a society, after all there are jobs about now that didn't exist when I went through high school and there will probably be jobs that don't exist now for my students when they reach my age. However a person with a solid education is a lot more adaptable to the changes in society than someone who has been pigeon-holed into a particular career pathway.

[oldrider]

This brings me back to the point that we should not treat education as a business, it should be a right for all people and as soon as you adopt the business model to it education becomes the privalige of the wealthy. Why should there be a commercial link? Can't we just aim for a highly educated population and leave all this talk about comparing it to industry out of the equation, of cause I am going to bleat on about being underfunded when my entire budget is what my signing rights were when I was 19 and working in industry. The reality is as soon as people start to talk about suppliers/consumers and market forces it worries me as there seems to be this attitude that people should be educated just so they can fit into a niche in the work place. With a well educated population we can make advances as a society, after all there are jobs about now that didn't exist when I went through high school and there will probably be jobs that don't exist now for my students when they reach my age. However a person with a solid education is a lot more adaptable to the changes in society than someone who has been pigeon-holed into a particular career pathway.

Cool.

Bet you don't realise it but what you have described above is almost what Roger Douglas and company were saying after the 1984 election!

Industry and business create real work and opportunities and these opportunities need educated flexible and diverse people to make them happen!

Education and industry go hand in hand and the workforce must be able to quickly adjust to the challenges and demands created by the market!

The pigeon-holes you speak of were created by the unions forcing workers to remain stagnent in the positions where they began and forced them to stay there!

The commercial link to education is vital and commerce should be financially supporting the education of the future workers they need.

Government departments were the old order of the day in their "make work" capacity by training workers for what they wanted rather than what industry needed.

The products of the old government departments were very good and in demand world wide but were not targeted and required retraining for most new jobs.

Education and Industry should be symbiotically linked especially where students can identify their desired career path.

Schools should be preparing students for their future in the workforce rather than just some meaningless unrelated curriculum!

We have the teachers, we have the students, we have the industries, the only thing we seem to need more of is direction!

[mashman]

I never said the current financial system is perfect, or without its flaws - I did however say it works regardless of whether people are nice to each other or not. which means it is a more robost system than NOW (which needs both the confidence of humans - all Systems require this, and Humans to be nice)

NOW requires nothing more than people to be exactly who and what they currently are. Itonically, you're saying that id the system changed, people would change for the worse. That proves that a change of system changes the perceptions and behaviour of the people. I'd like to know for sure, you're a chicken shit.

Okay then - a real world example - there are 50 cuts of Eye Fillet availible - 100 people want them. In the current system, the price is increased to the point that supply equals demand - ie 50 people can afford to buy them, 50 people can't.

Same example in NOW - 50 steaks, 100 people - I want an answer more substantial/fully formed than 'they get given to the person the butcher likes' - as this basically opens the door to absolute corruption - where the consumer is held hostage by the whims of the producer/supplier

I can't believe how succinct of a description of the current systekm that is. And jjust to make it absolutely clear, I mean both paragraphs.

Here's an example for you. There are 50 people who I believe don't deserve fillet steak, why don't I just shoot everyone who goes anywhere near fillet steak and eventually everyone will stop eating it.

You are damn straight I am not prepared to be held accountable to other people, they have no right to Judge me in the same way I have no right to judge them. The organisation needs to be accountable to the people - that is it. What you are insinuating is the classic entrapment line 'If you have nothing to hide, let us search your property without a warrant' which is why I called it 1984ism

But all you have done is judge them. Oh they will steal. Oh they will all want Ferrari's. Oh they will all be corrupt. Make your mind up son. What I'm insinuating is that we are one country, one people and to prove that I am willing to show your everything just in case. Make your own stories up if they help, but you're way off the mark when it comes to second guessing what my motives. Probably because they're your interpretation of my motives, which aren't only wrong, but they betray your projection of your view. You have confirmed that you don't trust people, I'm offering that the current financial system is the reason for that lack of trust. That, is entirely your choice.

My point is that how useful and abundant is entirely subject to perspective, to the raving Hippies, Petrol isn't abundant and should be limited to absolute necessity. To the Texas Oil Baron, Petrol is the most abundant stuff on the planet - come on in, use as much as you can pay for.

What's so hard about answering the question: Is petrol a finite resource? The answer is yes. Is there a manistream alternative? The answer is no. Do you think we should be conserving petrol until an alternative is found. My answer is yes. Your answer is, what does it matter as long as people can afford to pay for it. I'll side with the hippiesif your alternative is toignore the problemin the first place. That you can't think beyond your generation speaks volumes... that you label the hippies as hippies and refuse to take a side speaks volumes... that you don't accept that you may well need to restrain yourself given the finite resources that we have available speaks volumes. At some point my friend, you're going to have to consider something other than what you want. then again, you have free will and an entitlement complex to go with it, so you probably don't believe that it's your problem. Just an observation.

Of course when situations are changed people change, however a system that requires them to change in order for it to work might need some evidence that they have changed - Especially given previous behaviour.

To use an analogy - would you let a pedophile babysit your kids alone on his word alone that he has changed? Or would you instead ask for proof that he is not a danger before you even contemplated letting him near your children?

They don't have to change. If they don't change in the slightest the entire system would work. That people will change may well have both positive and negative consequences, but I'm putting my money (and will if I can get to a stage where I have it to burn without adversely affecting my family) on people being reasonable in response to the change.

I'd be educating my kids as to what a pedophile is and asking them if they want to be looked after such a person. If they're happy, and whilst I will have huge reservations about it, it would be up to them and up to the pedophile, or should I say ex-pedophile. Ideally I'd execute anyone convicted of pedophilia or rape. I'm not so keen on such behaviour being given a second chance, but with any luck I'd be overruled and would accept that overruling on the basis that the majority would grant them a second chance.

It's like saying, would you trust a currency trader to run your country.

[bogan]

Okay then - a real world example - there are 50 cuts of Eye Fillet availible - 100 people want them. In the current system, the price is increased to the point that supply equals demand - ie 50 people can afford to buy them, 50 people can't.

One of the core components of an rbe is plentiful bounty. To put it simply, if there is only 50 and demand for 100, the rbe is failing. For it to become a viable option, tech must increase, people's demands must decrease, and population must decrease, and people must be very open to the concept of sharing. Systems like mashy is describing where people decide to rashun out various items based on personal life like / dislike or personal favors are not rbes. Its simply a case of one guy with way too much faith in a system to see that it simply isn't time for it yet.

[Ocean1]

This brings me back to the point that we should not treat education as a business, it should be a right for all people and as soon as you adopt the business model to it education becomes the privalige of the wealthy. Why should there be a commercial link? Can't we just aim for a highly educated population and leave all this talk about comparing it to industry out of the equation, of cause I am going to bleat on about being underfunded when my entire budget is what my signing rights were when I was 19 and working in industry. The reality is as soon as people start to talk about suppliers/consumers and market forces it worries me as there seems to be this attitude that people should be educated just so they can fit into a niche in the work place. With a well educated population we can make advances as a society, after all there are jobs about now that didn't exist when I went through high school and there will probably be jobs that don't exist now for my students when they reach my age. However a person with a solid education is a lot more adaptable to the changes in society than someone who has been pigeon-holed into a particular career pathway.

There you go again, on one hand education shouldn't be considered a commercial enterprise but on the other hand it want's more money. Can you really not see the contradiction, there? Balancing costs against results isn't a business model, it's simply the real world, but for far too long a socialist leaning academia has wilfully denied that link between resources and results.

And it's only a right if taxpayers that pay for it decide to grant it so, and in order for that to happen you have to convince a majority that they should fund it. You'd get no argument from me, in spite of the fact that in my case the returns are far from obvious, but you need to learn to manage the real world to convince the rest.

[mansell]

There you go again, on one hand education shouldn't be considered a commercial enterprise but on the other hand it want's more money. Can you really not see the contradiction, there? Balancing costs against results isn't a business model, it's simply the real world, but for far too long a socialist leaning academia has wilfully denied that link between resources and results.

And it's only a right if taxpayers that pay for it decide to grant it so, and in order for that to happen you have to convince a majority that they should fund it. You'd get no argument from me, in spite of the fact that in my case the returns are far from obvious, but you need to learn to manage the real world to convince the rest.

I guess it is because in my opinion education shouldn't be for a purpose it should be the purpose - I know most people would want to see a practical benefit from increasing spending in schooling whereas to me an educated populus is a benefit in its own right. I am aware this is an ideological view point and as such will not hold sway with a vast number of people so it is unlikely to be a concept for any political party to grasp. But I guess it is this belief that has taken me away from industry and into the education sector. Personally I would like to live in a society where people were judged by their ability to think and where education is treated with the respect it deserves.

[oldrider]

I guess it is because in my opinion education shouldn't be for a purpose it should be the purpose - I know most people would want to see a practical benefit from increasing spending in schooling whereas to me an educated populus is a benefit in its own right. I am aware this is an ideological view point and as such will not hold sway with a vast number of people so it is unlikely to be a concept for any political party to grasp. But I guess it is this belief that has taken me away from industry and into the education sector. Personally I would like to live in a society where people were judged by their ability to think and where education is treated with the respect it deserves.

There is the rub, respect is earned rather than demanded.

[TheDemonLord]

Either you were drunk when you made the below post, or I hit a really raw Nerve

NOW requires nothing more than people to be exactly who and what they currently are. Itonically, you're saying that id the system changed, people would change for the worse. That proves that a change of system changes the perceptions and behaviour of the people. I'd like to know for sure, you're a chicken shit.

Ad Hominem, Really? - I never said that Changes in Systems didn't change Behaviour, I said that sometimes the behaviour change HAS to come before the system change, otherwise it dooms the system to failure.

A good example would be the Legal Drinking age - NZ could change the age to be on par with many European countries, however this would result in an severe negative consequences - because our Drinking behaviour has to change before the system can change - NOW is in the same boat

I can't believe how succinct of a description of the current systekm that is. And jjust to make it absolutely clear, I mean both paragraphs.

Here's an example for you. There are 50 people who I believe don't deserve fillet steak, why don't I just shoot everyone who goes anywhere near fillet steak and eventually everyone will stop eating it.

Again you Dodge the Question - surely if NOW was ready to be implemented, you would have provided an Answer already that is as fully formed as the current one - price rises to where Demand is Equal to Supply.

that said - Shooting people you don't believe deserve something IS an answer.... NOW - a Totalitarian 1984 regime where there is no privacy and you can be murdered by the government for wanting something Mashman doesn't think you deserve - Yep reaaaaaallllly selling me on the Idea that NOW will be Utopia....

But all you have done is judge them. Oh they will steal. Oh they will all want Ferrari's. Oh they will all be corrupt. Make your mind up son. What I'm insinuating is that we are one country, one people and to prove that I am willing to show your everything just in case. Make your own stories up if they help, but you're way off the mark when it comes to second guessing what my motives. Probably because they're your interpretation of my motives, which aren't only wrong, but they betray your projection of your view. You have confirmed that you don't trust people, I'm offering that the current financial system is the reason for that lack of trust. That, is entirely your choice.

I judge Humanity as a whole and of which I am a member. I judge them based on our passed actions over the last 5000 years of recorded history and earlier than that based on what we know from the fossil and evolutionary records. We got to where we are, not by sharing, but by blood, violence, greed, conquest etc.

But tell you what - why don't you do a survey of the greater masses:

"If money wasn't an issue - what car would you drive?

a: a 1985 clapped out Holden Barina
b: a 2013 brand new Lamborghini Aventador"

$50 says if that question is asked (without any bias inferred by the asker) almost everyone will choose Option B. I await your response with a full survey, control group and statistical analysis to prove me wrong.

I never doubt your motives to be noble and well intentioned, but they remain just that - well intentioned but not grounded in a system that could work.

What's so hard about answering the question: Is petrol a finite resource? The answer is yes. Is there a manistream alternative? The answer is no. Do you think we should be conserving petrol until an alternative is found. My answer is yes. Your answer is, what does it matter as long as people can afford to pay for it. I'll side with the hippiesif your alternative is toignore the problemin the first place. That you can't think beyond your generation speaks volumes... that you label the hippies as hippies and refuse to take a side speaks volumes... that you don't accept that you may well need to restrain yourself given the finite resources that we have available speaks volumes. At some point my friend, you're going to have to consider something other than what you want. then again, you have free will and an entitlement complex to go with it, so you probably don't believe that it's your problem. Just an observation.

My answer is that as Petrol becomes Scarcer - the price rises (as we have seen in NZ), which then limits the consumption of Petrol (as not everyone can afford it).

You still didn't answer the question though - Who decides and how is it decided? in a free market economy - Market driven forces (aka Greed) decide. Is it elegant? sort of. Is it effective? definitely. Is it right? Probably not.

In your system who replaces the Market Driven forces and What method do they use to make change? The who I would wager is El Banko NZo - but the how is far more difficult and so far your only response has been a BJ allocated system

I will restrain myself when everyone else does - not before.

Why should I consider anything other than what I want? I work hard to achieve what I want and as you quite rightly pointed out, I have free will and rights to enjoy the fruits of my Labour - is that entitlement, Maybe if I asked for what I wanted without being willing to work for it.

They don't have to change. If they don't change in the slightest the entire system would work. That people will change may well have both positive and negative consequences, but I'm putting my money (and will if I can get to a stage where I have it to burn without adversely affecting my family) on people being reasonable in response to the change.

If it will work as you say it will then provide a proof - I will accept a mathematical, a graph showing the solution, Something that can be analysed and confirmed to work.

I'd be educating my kids as to what a pedophile is and asking them if they want to be looked after such a person. If they're happy, and whilst I will have huge reservations about it, it would be up to them and up to the pedophile, or should I say ex-pedophile. Ideally I'd execute anyone convicted of pedophilia or rape. I'm not so keen on such behaviour being given a second chance, but with any luck I'd be overruled and would accept that overruling on the basis that the majority would grant them a second chance.

I call Bull.

I have seen in your other posts that your family is important to you (as it should be, this is not a critique of those principles) but would you risk it on someones word only? especially a person whose 'condition' (I hate to use that term) you know has a very high chance of Re-Offending. Or would you require proof of change, would you require security measures to be put in place? I suspect the answer if you are honest with me and with yourself is of course you would want proof before you placed your child in a potential dangerous situation. There is no shame or stigma with asking for Proof - it is one of the fundamentals that many institutions (science, Law etc.) are based on.

So why would you ridicule me so for asking the same - I ask for proof that humanity wouldn't try and screw each other over in order to ofset the long and bloody history of us doing so.

It's like saying, would you trust a currency trader to run your country.

Well, I wouldn't 'trust' them implicitly, but no more than I would trust a politician either. But should a Currency Trader be the best option for a countries Leader - then yes I would have to 'trust' them to run the country.

[mashman]

Its simply a case of one guy with way too much faith in a system to see that it simply isn't time for it yet.

That may well be, I am open to that, yet I know different... we're never going to know unless an alternative is floated and people are asked. I don't stand alone.

[bogan]

That may well be, I am open to that, yet I know different... we're never going to know unless an alternative is floated and people are asked. I don't stand alone.

This is the part you guys don't get though, an RBE is not a choice, it is an evolution. Society may evolve to that state, initially in small groups which then do better and multiply; but we do not yet have the 'plenty' that is the cornerstone of an RBE.

[mashman]

I will restrain myself when everyone else does - not before.

That's all it takes. But if you are unwilling to give people that trust, how can they prove themselves trustworthy? You say that some people won't take part and "bludge", so you use that as an excuse not to try. Yet you live in a society that does just that and accept it?