Re: Are monopolies so bad? Part II?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I agree that it would very likely negatively affect the very poorest. It might not negatively affect the next level of "poor", though, and conceivably might even help them. As for the very wealthy, it might easily have no effect whatsoever upon them.

[/ QUOTE ]

youd have to add income brackets on your tiers to make this mean anything.

Re: Are monopolies so bad? Part II?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Unless you'd like to start giving vouchers to every poor person, which of course would be reminiscent of welfare.

[/ QUOTE ]
How about giving vouchers to all students, which of course would be reminiscent of choice.

Re: Are monopolies so bad? Part II?
 

[ QUOTE ]
How about giving vouchers to all students, which of course would be reminiscent of choice.

[/ QUOTE ]

where does all the money for these vouchers come from? Private schools are great education because they have the money to make it so. If poor districts can onlysupport poor education systems how can they afford to send students to better schools with vouchers?

Re: Are monopolies so bad? Part II?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Unless you'd like to start giving vouchers to every poor person, which of course would be reminiscent of welfare.

[/ QUOTE ]
How about giving vouchers to all students, which of course would be reminiscent of choice.

[/ QUOTE ]

What? This is clearly a ridiculous idea.

Re: Are monopolies so bad? Part II?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How about giving vouchers to all students, which of course would be reminiscent of choice.

[/ QUOTE ]

where does all the money for these vouchers come from? Private schools are great education because they have the money to make it so. If poor districts can onlysupport poor education systems how can they afford to send students to better schools with vouchers?

[/ QUOTE ]

You are seriously wondering how competition could improve quality? Are you serious?

natedogg

Re: Are monopolies so bad? Part II?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Well, the reason it is continued is because a privatized system would leave the poor even further behind,

[/ QUOTE ]

You can't get further behind than zero. And giving vouchers would only be a detriment to those who didn't care. Any parent or child who had any inclination at all would get their child into a better school. We all know it.

[ QUOTE ]
and the wealthy further ahead.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good grief, you people are obsessed. The wealthy are *already* further ahead. Vouchers would do jack squat for the wealthy.

[ QUOTE ]
Unless you'd like to start giving vouchers to every poor person, which of course would be reminiscent of welfare.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you mean every poor child, then yes, that is pretty much the point. You don't seriously think I support "vouchers for the wealthy"? Put the poor in public schools/pens and give the wealthy some vouchers?

natedogg