# University of California votes to restore affirmative action nearly 24 years after it was outlawed



## blam (Jun 16, 2020)

I consider myself to be from the extreme left and progressive. However, this decision sickens me.

Why is it that affirmative action is raced based? I do not see any logic why a person of color whose dad is in the top 1% should stand to benefit from affirmative action.

As a progressive, I am all in favor of helping students who are not from well to do families to be given a helping hand when it comes to admissions. So I am 100% in favor of affirmative action based on income and opportunities available.

The problem with such policies is it now creates a schism between the working class folks. Now the not well to do white folks will be driven away from Democratic party because they are the ones who stand the most to lose from this. Ha! Another tactic by the top 1%to divide the working class based on racial lines by reintroducing affirmative action based on race instead of income levels?









						University of California votes to restore affirmative action nearly 24 years after it was outlawed | CNN
					

The University of California has voted to restore affirmative action in hopes of diversifying its student body.




					www.cnn.com


----------



## MyDaughtersAKeeper (Jun 17, 2020)

Per the UC system: "Proposition 209 has forced California public institutions to try to address racial inequality without factoring in race, even where allowed by federal law. The diversity of our university and higher education institutions across California, should -- and must -- represent the rich diversity of our state."  Then maybe they should make in state students a priority: https://www.forbes.com/sites/kristenmoon/2018/11/15/uc-admissions-why-being-an-out-of-state-student-might-just-work-in-your-favor/#6d775da4527b. 
I guess out of state money is hard to give up, but at least the press release looks good.


----------



## Woobie06 (Jun 17, 2020)

Wow!!!  Why can’t it be a meritocracy?  You get in on merit alone.  Many of the Universities in CA are very liberal in their beliefs, I would think UC Schools are very much so.  To think that these considerations are not already being made by admissions is naive.  It’s just legislating it. People will argue privilege, money, etc., etc., but didn’t they just catch a whole bunch in 1%’s playing dirty and are prosecuting the heck out of them.  I know one of the guys, he was an exec at a client of mine, and he was an asshat.  He got what he deserved.  What these people did was wrong and stole opportunities from other deserving people.

Are we moving backwards where we are trying to implement different standards for different color people, different socioeconomic backgrounds, etc.?  Isn’t this the opposite of equal, what people are fighting for?  I guess life is going to measured on a curve going forward and the Federal, State, and Local Governments are going to set the grading standards.  There is a difference between equal opportunity and trying to create equality.  They are very different.

Think about a lottery for $1000...there are 100 entries at $10 a pop. Equal opportunity is that the first 100 people with $10 in cash can enter. The standard or requirement to enter is that you have $10. Period. Everybody has an equal chance of winning. This is equal opportunity.

Trying to create equality is when you start giving people additional entries, let them enter for less than $10, or adjusting the opportunity to win based on comparisons of the other entrants...how much money they have, education, background, race, sex, etc.  Adjusting the chances to win based on a scale  that determines who needs or deserves it more.  Creating equality is not equal.  Some people are smarter, some work harder, some people are just more talented.  Does environment play a part, sure it can and does in some cases.  This is just the kind of thing that is treating the symptom rather than trying to cure the disease.  We don’t all have the same parents, same life, same money, etc., etc.  Life is not fair, not everyones situation is identical.  Some people work hard and rise at all levels, some people squander their chances, and some people do the bare minimum.  Ability and results are not equal across people.  Some people perform better than others.  Sports is a great example of this.

As a business owner, I hire the best people I can for what my payroll budget allows.  We have all colors, all genders, I could care less if you are orange or green.  The only thing that matters is are you reliable, can I count of you to show up, can you do the job, do you have the skills, and can you pass a background and drug screen.  That’s my standard of entry or $10.  But if you start telling me that I have to start giving preference to people because of their color or their socioeconomic background versus their ability there is no other word for that other than wrong.  It may drive me to take my 100+ jobs, and taxes out of California.  It’s small potatoes, but I’m sure there a lot of small business owners who feel the same way.


----------



## blam (Jun 17, 2020)

Woobie06 said:


> Wow!!! Why can’t it be a meritocracy?


It can't be based on merit alone because the system isn't fair. Do you think you would get the same grades and learned the same if you went to a lower level high school?

Let's say you attended a bad high school. In Math class, your classmates are slow. Your teacher in order to cater to make sure all the students gain something from the class dumbs down the syllabus. After the class, you took the SAT and realized that you were not prepared at it because your teacher had dumbed down the syllabus because of your slower classmates. Not fair to you because you had the brains to do well but because of the school you were in, you failed to show who you really were and the school failed to prepare you because of your slower classmates.

This is why I support affirmative action. However, last time I checked, this disadvantage is directly related to socioeconomic status, not race. There are very rich minorities who attend good schools and come from pricey neighborhoods. These people should not benefit from affirmative action. There was a study done at Harvard which showed that 70% of its minority students were from wealthy families.


----------



## nononono (Jun 17, 2020)

*STUDY YOUR ASS OFF AND LET YOUR " RESULTS " SPEAK FOR YOU.....*
*
ENOUGH OF THIS CODDLING BY THE STATE......

YOU CAN EASILY DISCERN BETWEEN WHO THINKS AND WHO LETS*
*SOMEONE ELSE WIPE THEIR ASS ! *


----------



## Woobie06 (Jun 17, 2020)

blam said:


> It can't be based on merit alone because the system isn't fair. Do you think you would get the same grades and learned the same if you went to a lower level high school?
> 
> Let's say you attended a bad high school. In Math class, your classmates are slow. Your teacher in order to cater to make sure all the students gain something from the class dumbs down the syllabus. After the class, you took the SAT and realized that you were not prepared at it because your teacher had dumbed down the syllabus because of your slower classmates. Not fair to you because you had the brains to do well but because of the school you were in, you failed to show who you really were and the school failed to prepare you because of your slower classmates.
> 
> This is why I support affirmative action. However, last time I checked, this disadvantage is directly related to socioeconomic status, not race. There are very rich minorities who attend good schools and come from pricey neighborhoods. These people should not benefit from affirmative action. There was a study done at Harvard which showed that 70% of its minority students were from wealthy families.


I hear what you are saying and I can get on board with that to a point.  The flip side is that a kid who gets the grades, is prepared, meets the qualifications, gets the scores and meets the standard of entry, but does not get accepted.  That’s not an equal opportunity of entry.  We then have to make choices on who is more deserving of the opportunity.  One who has demonstrated they have done it and the other who may have the potential to do it.  This is where it gets tricky for me.

I look at it like hiring.  I have two entry level candidates, one from a highly regarded school one from a middle of the road state school.  Both excellent grades, activities, campus involvement, etc.internships based on location, etc. the one from the more prestigious school looks better on paper, higher profile school, better internship company, etc.  INTERVIEW....I’ve hired the less prestigious school many times over based on the interview results.

I can tell from the interview who is hungry, true interest, attitude, ask life experience questions, etc.  I can see the things paper does not tell you.  I think the decision should be made on the Objective Information - grades/scores/etc. and the Subjective Information gathered during the interview.  I’m against the decisions made via filter and demographic data on an application, income, etc.  I guess what I am saying is that if you are going to create an opportunity for somebody it should be deserved/earned and based on ability and results and not just because a specific box is checked.


----------



## nononono (Jun 17, 2020)

Woobie06 said:


> I hear what you are saying and I can get on board with that to a point.  The flip side is that a kid who gets the grades, is prepared, meets the qualifications, gets the scores and meets the standard of entry, but does not get accepted.  That’s not an equal opportunity of entry.  We then have to make choices on who is more deserving of the opportunity.  One who has demonstrated they have done it and the other who may have the potential to do it.  This is where it gets tricky for me.
> 
> I look at it like hiring.  I have two entry level candidates, one from a highly regarded school one from a middle of the road state school.  Both excellent grades, activities, campus involvement, etc.internships based on location, etc. the one from the more prestigious school looks better on paper, higher profile school, better internship company, etc.  INTERVIEW....I’ve hired the less prestigious school many times over based on the interview results.
> 
> I can tell from the interview who is hungry, true interest, attitude, ask life experience questions, etc.  I can see the things paper does not tell you.  I think the decision should be made on the Objective Information - grades/scores/etc. and the Subjective Information gathered during the interview.  I’m against the decisions made via filter and demographic data on an application, income, etc.  I guess what I am saying is that if you are going to create an opportunity for somebody it should be deserved/earned and based on ability and results and not just because a specific box is checked.



*I NEVER " HIRE " SOLELY ON PAPER....
UP FRONT AND PERSONAL.....BECAUSE MY EMPLOYEES WORK UP FRONT
AND PERSONAL.*


----------



## Nonononono (Jun 17, 2020)

nononono said:


> *I NEVER " HIRE " SOLELY ON PAPER....
> UP FRONT AND PERSONAL.....BECAUSE MY EMPLOYEES WORK UP FRONT
> AND PERSONAL.*


Who knew you’re a pimp.


----------



## Ellejustus (Jun 17, 2020)

blam said:


> It can't be based on merit alone *because the system isn't fair*. Do you think you would get the same grades and learned the same if you went to a lower level high school?
> 
> Let's say you attended a bad high school. In Math class, your classmates are slow. Your teacher in order to cater to make sure all the students gain something from the class dumbs down the syllabus. After the class, you took the SAT and realized that you were not prepared at it because your teacher had dumbed down the syllabus because of your slower classmates. Not fair to you because you had the brains to do well but because of the school you were in, you failed to show who you really were and the school failed to prepare you because of your slower classmates.
> 
> This is why I support affirmative action. However, last time I checked, this disadvantage is directly related to socioeconomic status, not race. There are very rich minorities who attend good schools and come from pricey neighborhoods. These people should not benefit from affirmative action. There was a study done at Harvard which showed that 70% of its minority students were from wealthy families.


Excellent takes.  
The system is not fair.  Period, end of story.  I was dumb dumb and brought the grades down at the whole school.  Back then you got judged as a teacher based off scores and I was dumb dumb.  I held the school back and the scores because I took longer to speak because__________________________ and i was dumb.  School is easy for some and hard for others.  My son is Mr test taker.  On paper, super star.  My dd, I already said not that good of test taker.,,,,but way better than I was and is doing way better in this new online format that I see will continue most likely. Why not take both kids and have a broader program at these schools with diversity in the truest way.  The requirements to get into some of these Unicorn U schools is next to impossible unless your gifted like Dr Carson and had the best mom in the world raising you.  Not all learn the same way is what I'm trying to say.  For example, the kids in Newport Beach learn differently then the kids in South Central.  Maybe the kids in NB are too slow and can't keep up with the kids in South Central?  I love college but it's so darn hard to get in for some and most know by the 6th grade it's over.  You actually see some of them now on tv.  Plus and lastly, the smart test takers aren;t always the smartest ones when life hits them in the face with one challenge after another later in life.  Woobie, you need a salesman to kick ass for you?


----------



## nononono (Jun 17, 2020)

QUOTE="blam, post: 335285, member: 4726"
It can't be based on merit alone because the system isn't fair. Do you think you would get the same grades and learned the same if you went to a lower level high school?

Let's say you attended a bad high school. In Math class, your classmates are slow. Your teacher in order to cater to make sure all the students gain something from the class dumbs down the syllabus. After the class, you took the SAT and realized that you were not prepared at it because your teacher had dumbed down the syllabus because of your slower classmates. Not fair to you because you had the brains to do well but because of the school you were in, you failed to show who you really were and the school failed to prepare you because of your slower classmates.

This is why I support affirmative action. However, last time I checked, this disadvantage is directly related to socioeconomic status, not race. There are very rich minorities who attend good schools and come from pricey neighborhoods. These people should not benefit from affirmative action. There was a study done at Harvard which showed that 70% of its minority students were from wealthy families.
/QUOTE


*Blam.... Blam....Blam....*
*Shots Fired...!

Does Nigeria have affirmative action.....?
Does India have affirmative action......?
Does Good Old Corrupt China have affirmative action....?*

*Go on " Blamey " ....line up some excuses...!*


----------



## blam (Jun 17, 2020)

Woobie06 said:


> The flip side is that a kid who gets the grades, is prepared, meets the qualifications, gets the scores and meets the standard of entry, but does not get accepted. That’s not an equal opportunity of entry.


However perhaps biased that I did not come from a rich background myself I have a soft heart for those who grew up disadvantaged.

My order of preference is:
1) affirmative action based on income 
2) merit based

99) affirmative action based on race


Affirmative action based on race is just racist.


----------



## nononono (Jun 17, 2020)

Nonononono said:


> Who knew you’re a pimp.


*I would never steal your job....unlike you who stole my logon + 1.*

*Shows how shallow you are Fat Bob the Slob...*


----------



## nononono (Jun 17, 2020)

blam said:


> However perhaps biased that I did not come from a rich background myself I have a soft heart for those who grew up disadvantaged.
> 
> My order of preference is:
> 1) affirmative action based on income
> ...


*Affirmative Action anyway you paint it is a crutch....stand up on your own two feet.
This is AMERICA in the year 2020.*


----------



## Woobie06 (Jun 17, 2020)

blam said:


> However perhaps biased that I did not come from a rich background myself I have a soft heart for those who grew up disadvantaged.
> 
> My order of preference is:
> 1) affirmative action based on income
> ...


I get your take.  I would swap 1 and 2 and make sure there are spots for those that have exhibited potential, ability, and deserve the opportunity but have not yet demonstrated the capability yet. I just believe that if merit is not the top criteria the wrong message is being sent.  Look at sports, you may bet on a spread but you don’t play on one.  Athletes come from a wide variety of backgrounds.  The same effort, commitment, and drive can be focused on academics rather than sport.


----------



## nononono (Jun 17, 2020)

Woobie06 said:


> I get your take.  I would swap 1 and 2 and make sure there are spots for those that have exhibited potential, ability, and deserve the opportunity but have not yet demonstrated the capability yet. I just believe that if merit is not the top criteria the wrong message is being sent.  Look at sports, you may bet on a spread but you don’t play on one.  Athletes come from a wide variety of backgrounds.  The same effort, commitment, and drive can be focused on academics rather than sport.



*Stand on your own two feet.....The Govt is not your mother.*


----------



## blam (Jun 17, 2020)

nononono said:


> *Stand on your own two feet.....The Govt is not your mother.*



Do you agree that students should be able to attend elementary middle or high school based on their ability rather than zipcode?


----------



## nononono (Jun 18, 2020)

blam said:


> Do you agree that students should be able to attend elementary middle or high school based on their ability rather than zipcode?



*Classic Democrat tactic ...change the narrative when called out.*
*
You started a thread on " University Affirmative Action "  ...proceeded to
whine and whimper through out your initial post, then anchor it with an article 
stating that California's UC system will restore " Affirmative Action "....

(And who is the " President " of the California UC system....Janet Napolitano...
That's why the UC system is a complete mess....)

No where does the subject come up about K - 12, and it should not.
The solution is Parenting, plain and simple......when kids study and 
are motivated they succeed....it doesn't matter where they are raised....!!

Sit down and think about that for awhile, instead of ways to disrupt family*
*structure....!*


----------



## blam (Jun 18, 2020)

nononono said:


> The solution is Parenting, plain and simple......when kids study and
> are motivated they succeed


*That is one solution, however, it takes an entire community to improve their parenting for it to work. If the community inside the zipcode does not parent well, then the small number of kids who are parented well will see their academic performance suffer because the teachers in their school had to dumb down the syllabus. It is this small number of kids who have the potential but is hurt by the community that they live in that I am trying to save.

*


----------



## nononono (Jun 18, 2020)

blam said:


> *That is one solution, however, it takes an entire community to improve their parenting for it to work. If the community inside the zipcode does not parent well, then the small number of kids who are parented well will see their academic performance suffer because the teachers in their school had to dumb down the syllabus. It is this small number of kids who have the potential but is hurt by the community that they live in that I am trying to save.*



*Nice......you decided to use bold....that means you are engaged.
I like it...!

Now lets address your poor poor argument....

A. What's the Zip Code of Nigeria's Capital city..?
B. What's the Zip Code of Zimbabwe's Capital City..?
C What's the Zip Code of India's Capital City....?

Those three cities/countries produce very intelligent students...*
*WITHOUT AFFIRMATIVE ACTION !*
*IMAGINE THAT ! *


----------



## blam (Jun 18, 2020)

nononono said:


> Those three cities/countries produce very intelligent students...


*Those are good cities. If you take any of their good students and plant them into our bad schools, their own results will go down. The system and environment you are in, also determines your outcome to a very large extent.*


----------



## nononono (Jun 18, 2020)

blam said:


> *Those are good cities. If you take any of their good students and plant them into our bad schools, their own results will go down. The system and environment you are in, also determines your outcome to a very large extent.*


*Horseshit on both counts.....I have personal knowledge that says 
YOU ARE FULL OF SHIT.*


----------



## blam (Jun 20, 2020)

nononono said:


> Horseshit on both counts.....I have personal knowledge that says
> YOU ARE FULL OF SHIT.


If you happen to be living in a neighborhood where schools are bad,  where your teachers dumb down the syllabus so that your classmates can follow the class, as a result you are not prepared to take the SAT because among some reason, your teacher did not finish teaching the syllabus; are you saying that you would refuse to be helped in this matter through affirmative action?

I on the other hand think you should be helped. The one difference between me and other progressives is I believe affirmative action should apply to all races and we should help those who could not afford a home in an expensive zipcode to go to a good school. Other supporters of affirmative action do not care about income level, they would be happy to admit the children of CEO of a Black person as long as they are black to make the admissions class colorful. This is why I consider those supporters racists.


----------



## nononono (Jun 22, 2020)

QUOTE="blam, post: 336272, member: 4726"

If you happen to be living in a neighborhood where schools are bad,  where your teachers dumb down the syllabus so that your classmates can follow the class, as a result you are not prepared to take the SAT because among some reason, your teacher did not finish teaching the syllabus; are you saying that you would refuse to be helped in this matter through affirmative action?
*Never can a Liberal/Progressive take responsibility for their OWN actions....It's very disheartening to *
*see how you twisted the **" SAT Drama " and made it the Teachers problem....Parenting numnuts...Parenting....!
Eighteen years of raising/nurturing a GOOD product, or Eighteen years of playing the BLAME game and conditioning the offspring** to continue the cycle....*
*CHOICES !!!!!*


I on the other hand think you should be helped. The one difference between me and other progressives is I believe affirmative action should apply to all races and we should help those who could not afford a home in an expensive zipcode to go to a good school. Other supporters of affirmative action do not care about income level, they would be happy to admit the children of CEO of a Black person as long as they are black to make the admissions class colorful. This is why I consider those supporters racists.
*You have a very miserable outlook on life, go to an Ice Cream shop and purchase some " Comfort " and 
sit some place quiet for awhile.....*


/QUOTE


----------



## blam (Jun 22, 2020)

nononono said:


> *Never can a Liberal/Progressive take responsibility for their OWN actions....It's very disheartening to *
> *see how you twisted the **" SAT Drama " and made it the Teachers problem....Parenting numnuts...Parenting....!*



Wait...so you are saying that which school you go does not matter to your grades? I just gave an example: if your teacher dumbs down the syllabus for your class, even if you are a smart kid, you will be unprepared to take the SAT because your teacher didn't finish the syllabus.


----------



## Bruddah IZ (Jun 22, 2020)




----------



## Bruddah IZ (Jun 22, 2020)

blam said:


> Wait...so you are saying that which school you go does not matter to your grades? I just gave an example: if your teacher dumbs down the syllabus for your class, even if you are a smart kid, you will be unprepared to take the SAT because your teacher didn't finish the syllabus.


Where you go to school does matter.  Are you saying that public schools allow for teachers to dumb down the syllabus?  If so, maybe government shouldn’t be in the education business.


----------



## blam (Jun 23, 2020)

Bruddah IZ said:


> Are you saying that public schools allow for teachers to dumb down the syllabus? If so, maybe government shouldn’t be in the education business.



Totally agree with Thomas Stowell guy. Affirmative action based on race cannot be defended. Affirmative action needs to be based on giving fair opportunity to all regardless of race.

Private schools will not solve the issue. This problem exist whenever there are groups of people. Take a soccer team. You have one star player who shows all skills to play pro, and he is paired up with 10 other players who suck. If you are the coach, you have no choice but to "dumb down" the training so that the other 10 can follow. 

Private or Public has nothing to do with it. The root is that school allocation is based on zipcodes and property taxes which means that if you live in a rich area, you will go to good schools, with children who are raised by good parents etc. etc. and the opposite for poorer neighborhood. Now you take a kid with innate talent to do well, put him in this bad zipcode, the environment will just tear him down and he will not perform to his true potential. As a thought experiment, take a top student from a good high school, put him into the worst school in your district, i guarantee you his performance in standardized testing will suffer significantly. He can raised by good parents, but his classmates will bring the system down. Not fair to him. 

The system of allocating schools based on zipcode need to be eliminated if we want to eliminate affirmative action based on income because the current system is not fair. Affirmative based on race is not even a consideration for me because that is straight out racist.


----------



## Bruddah IZ (Jun 23, 2020)

blam said:


> Totally agree with Thomas Stowell guy. Affirmative action based on race cannot be defended. Affirmative action needs to be based on giving fair opportunity to all regardless of race.


So much for total agreement with Sowell.


----------



## nononono (Jun 23, 2020)

blam said:


> Wait...so you are saying that which school you go does not matter to your grades? I just gave an example: if your teacher dumbs down the syllabus for your class, even if you are a smart kid, you will be unprepared to take the SAT because your teacher didn't finish the syllabus.


*You're on the losing end of this argument.......Waaaaaay over on the losing end.

When YOU ride a bicycle who controls it....?*


----------



## nononono (Jun 23, 2020)

blam said:


> Totally agree with Thomas Stowell guy. Affirmative action based on race cannot be defended. Affirmative action needs to be based on giving fair opportunity to all regardless of race.
> 
> Private schools will not solve the issue. This problem exist whenever there are groups of people. Take a soccer team. You have one star player who shows all skills to play pro, and he is paired up with 10 other players who suck. If you are the coach, you have no choice but to "dumb down" the training so that the other 10 can follow.
> 
> ...



*Wallpapering the problem doesn't make it go away................*


----------



## Bruddah IZ (Jun 23, 2020)

blam said:


> Private schools will not solve the issue. This problem exist whenever there are groups of people. Take a soccer team. You have one star player who shows all skills to play pro, and he is paired up with 10 other players who suck. If you are the coach, you have no choice but to "dumb down" the training so that the other 10 can follow.


Teams and Private schools $olve problems whenever there are groups of people who are willing to $olve problems.  Otherwise they keep moving until they find a location and group that they can work with to $olve problems.


----------



## Bruddah IZ (Jun 23, 2020)

blam said:


> Private or Public has nothing to do with it. The root is that school allocation is based on zipcodes and property taxes which means that if you live in a rich area, you will go to good schools, with children who are raised by good parents etc. etc. and the opposite for poorer neighborhood. Now you take a kid with innate talent to do well, put him in this bad zipcode, the environment will just tear him down and he will not perform to his true potential. As a thought experiment, take a top student from a good high school, put him into the worst school in your district, i guarantee you his performance in standardized testing will suffer significantly. He can raised by good parents, but his classmates will bring the system down. Not fair to him.


Why would you tell us that public and private have nothing to do with "it" and then explain to us why it actually has a lot to do with "it"?


----------



## Bruddah IZ (Jun 23, 2020)

blam said:


> The system of allocating schools based on zipcode need to be eliminated if we want to eliminate affirmative action based on income because the current system is not fair. Affirmative based on race is not even a consideration for me because that is straight out racist.


Sowell was born in Gastonia, North Carolina, near the border with South Carolina. His father died shortly before he was born, and his mother, a housemaid, already had four children. A great-aunt and her two grown daughters adopted Sowell and raised him.[2] In his autobiography, _A Personal Odyssey,_ Sowell wrote that his childhood encounters with white people were so limited that he did not know that blond was a hair color.[3] When Sowell was nine, his family moved from Charlotte, North Carolina, to Harlem, New York City, as part of the Great Migration of African Americans from the South to the North for greater opportunities. He qualified for Stuyvesant High School, a prestigious academic high school in New York City; he was the first in his family to study beyond the sixth grade. However, he was forced to drop out at age 17 because of financial difficulties and problems in his home.[2]

Sowell held a number of positions, including one at a machine shop and another as a delivery man for Western Union,[4] and he tried out for the Brooklyn Dodgers in 1948.[5] He was drafted into the military in 1951, during the Korean War, and was assigned to the United States Marine Corps. Because of his experience in photography, Sowell became a Marine Corps photographer.[2]


----------



## blam (Jun 23, 2020)

Bruddah IZ said:


> He qualified for Stuyvesant High School, a prestigious academic high school in New York City;


And there you have it. A high school not based on zipcode.


----------



## blam (Jun 23, 2020)

Bruddah IZ said:


> Teams and Private schools $olve problems whenever there are groups of people who are willing to $olve problems. Otherwise they keep moving until they find a location and group that they can work with to $olve problems.


You only have freedom to move if you can afford it. Pay to play. If you can pay yourself to play in a good team, then problem solved. Yes, you can always say, the person who lived in a bad neighborhood can go to a private school instead. What if he doesn't have the money?

Free market is a good way to solve many problems and should always be the first attempt. However, as in many economics textbook, there is a chapter called "market failure" which is usually taught towards the end which the teachers will skip if the class had been dumbed down. This is where the market fails to allocate resources correctly. Situations where this arises are : imperfect information, externalizes, in deterministic events and game theory and are subjects of more advanced economics courses.

Also we don't exactly live in a free market as described by Adam Smith. If we lived in such a world, free market is indeed a very good way to resolve a lot of these. We live in a very special form of market known as Capitalism. M-> C- >M' .


----------



## nononono (Jun 23, 2020)

blam said:


> And there you have it. A high school not based on zipcode.



*Oh my Mr " Blam Blam "....are you traveling back in time, or are you discussing the 
present which molds the FUTURE !*


----------



## Bruddah IZ (Jun 23, 2020)

blam said:


> And there you have it. A high school not based on zipcode.


No?  How did he qualify?


----------



## The Outlaw *BANNED* (Jun 23, 2020)

blam said:


> I consider myself to be from the extreme left and progressive. However, this decision sickens me.
> 
> Why is it that affirmative action is raced based? I do not see any logic why a person of color whose dad is in the top 1% should stand to benefit from affirmative action.
> 
> ...


Why do you think someone of lower means shouldn't have to pay tuition and others should?


----------



## blam (Jun 23, 2020)

Bruddah IZ said:


> No? How did he qualify?



The high school he went to is a very prestigious high school. Only the smartest kids can get admissions. It is not based on zipcode.


----------



## blam (Jun 23, 2020)

The Outlaw said:


> Why do you think someone of lower means shouldn't have to pay tuition and others should?


This is off topic. NO one is arguing for free tuition or not. But that if one wants to go to a different high school, our current system requires you to be in a specific zipcode or if private, pay for it. This means that those without the means have to go to public schools.  Our other friend is suggesting that free market will fix it and I bring up one point which is it takes money to make these choices. A better way would be to just knowledge to purchase admissions, like a test, those who score the highest get into the best high schools.


----------



## The Outlaw *BANNED* (Jun 23, 2020)

blam said:


> This is off topic. NO one is arguing for free tuition or not. But that if one wants to go to a different high school, our current system requires you to be in a specific zipcode or if private, pay for it. This means that those without the means have to go to public schools.  Our other friend is suggesting that free market will fix it and I bring up one point which is it takes money to make these choices. A better way would be to just knowledge to purchase admissions, like a test, those who score the highest get into the best high schools.


You brought it up... now it's off topic?  You can always request a transfer or find a charter school.  You won't necessarily get it, but if a kid is in a shitty school, chances are the entire district is shitty.  So the high school 2 miles the other direction isn't likely to be better and, if you're in that shitty district to begin with, you don't have the means to travel far anyway.  How would "those with the best test scores" get to a high school 30 minutes away?  Not an option for most kids.  If there was 1 great school, wouldn't everybody want to be there?  Then how do you decide who gets in?  Does someone get in over a higher performing kid because of ethnicity?  Hardship?  Slippery slope that's already FUBAR'd.


----------



## blam (Jun 23, 2020)

The Outlaw said:


> If there was 1 great school, wouldn't everybody want to be there? Then how do you decide who gets in?


Like Stuyvesant high, test scores. Its much better than our current system: zipcodes. It is because of zipcodes that I support affirmative action based on income levels.


----------



## The Outlaw *BANNED* (Jun 23, 2020)

blam said:


> Like Stuyvesant high, test scores. Its much better than our current system: zipcodes. It is because of zipcodes that I support affirmative action based on income levels.


Your example is in Manhattan.


----------



## nononono (Jun 23, 2020)

blam said:


> This is off topic. NO one is arguing for free tuition or not. But that if one wants to go to a different high school, our current system requires you to be in a specific zipcode or if private, pay for it. This means that those without the means have to go to public schools.  Our other friend is suggesting that free market will fix it and I bring up one point which is it takes money to make these choices. A better way would be to just knowledge to purchase admissions, like a test, those who score the highest get into the best high schools.



*This is " OFF TOPIC " and when YOU act like your looking for a hand out....you will be treated as such....!*
*

PARENTING IS THE SOLUTION....!
NOT LETTING THE " GOVT " RAISE YOUR CHILDREN.....!*
*If you cannot see that, then all I can hope for is that your downstream has an Epiphany..!*


----------



## nononono (Jun 23, 2020)

blam said:


> Like Stuyvesant high, test scores. Its much better than our current system: zipcodes. It is because of zipcodes that I support affirmative action based on income levels.



*How long are you going to hit your head on the wall.....*

*Just be a " PARENT "......It's quite simple !*


----------



## Bruddah IZ (Jun 23, 2020)

blam said:


> The high school he went to is a very prestigious high school. Only the smartest kids can get admissions. It is not based on zipcode.


You just have to be smart enough to be a part of the Great Migration of blacks that moved there for better opportunities.


----------



## Bruddah IZ (Jun 23, 2020)

blam said:


> You only have freedom to move if you can afford it. Pay to play. If you can pay yourself to play in a good team, then problem solved. Yes, you can always say, the person who lived in a bad neighborhood can go to a private school instead. What if he doesn't have the money?


You borrow it, use credit, apply for scholarships, get a job, become a soccer ref!  Kinda like a lot of folks do today.  Lol!


----------



## Bruddah IZ (Jun 23, 2020)

blam said:


> Free market is a good way to solve many problems and should always be the first attempt.


Then what?


----------



## Bruddah IZ (Jun 23, 2020)

blam said:


> However, as in many economics textbook, there is a chapter called "market failure" which is usually taught towards the end which the teachers will skip if the class had been dumbed down. This is where the market fails to allocate resources correctly. Situations where this arises are : imperfect information, externalizes, in deterministic events and game theory and are subjects of more advanced economics courses.


LMAO!!  What is the cause of the markets alleged failure to allocate resources correctly?  What makes information imperfect? What is "externalizes"? Lol!  Advanced economics?  For you maybe.


----------



## Bruddah IZ (Jun 23, 2020)

blam said:


> Also we don't exactly live in a free market as described by Adam Smith. If we lived in such a world, free market is indeed a very good way to resolve a lot of these. We live in a very special form of market known as Capitalism. M-> C- >M' .


Why don't we live in a free market?  Beside Corona Virus and Rioting I mean.


----------



## Bruddah IZ (Jun 23, 2020)

blam said:


> This is off topic. NO one is arguing for free tuition or not. But that if one wants to go to a different high school, our current system requires you to be in a specific zipcode or if private, pay for it. This means that those without the means have to go to public schools.  Our other friend is suggesting that free market will fix it and I bring up one point which is it takes money to make these choices. A better way would be to just knowledge to purchase admissions, like a test, those who score the highest get into the best high schools.


What's wrong with public schools?  The freakin' PUSD Billion dollar bonds!  That's what!


----------



## blam (Jun 25, 2020)

Bruddah IZ said:


> Why don't we live in a free market? Beside Corona Virus and Rioting I mean.


We don't live in a free market as written by *Adam Smith* in the wealth of nations. Marx later describe the specific form of free market he lived in, which is Capitalism.  I used to not know that I was a Libetarian when I first studied economics because the early chapters of any economics textbook appear to have all answers in the market.

 But I didn't need Marx to tell me what was wrong with it. The latter chapters of any economics textbook already talks about failures of free market: eg. market information, game theory, monopoly etc. etc. which causes free market to not efficiently allocate resources. 

Marx went on to refine Adam Smith's theory. In his book Capital, Marx showed that Capitalism is the best system to generate profit and to promote technological advances. Marx is still "classical" in the sense that he does not even yet go into game theory or asymmetry of information etc. etc.


----------



## Bruddah IZ (Jun 25, 2020)

blam said:


> We don't live in a free market as written by *Adam Smith* in the wealth of nations. Marx later describe the specific form of free market he lived in, which is Capitalism.  I used to not know that I was a Libetarian when I first studied economics because the early chapters of any economics textbook appear to have all answers in the market.
> 
> But I didn't need Marx to tell me what was wrong with it. The latter chapters of any economics textbook already talks about failures of free market: eg. market information, game theory, monopoly etc. etc. which causes free market to not efficiently allocate resources.
> 
> Marx went on to refine Adam Smith's theory. In his book Capital, Marx showed that Capitalism is the best system to generate profit and to promote technological advances. Marx is still "classical" in the sense that he does not even yet go into game theory or asymmetry of information etc. etc.


What makes a market not free?


----------



## nononono (Jun 25, 2020)

blam said:


> We don't live in a free market as written by *Adam Smith* in the wealth of nations. Marx later describe the specific form of free market he lived in, which is Capitalism.  I used to not know that I was a Libetarian when I first studied economics because the early chapters of any economics textbook appear to have all answers in the market.
> 
> But I didn't need Marx to tell me what was wrong with it. The latter chapters of any economics textbook already talks about failures of free market: eg. market information, game theory, monopoly etc. etc. which causes free market to not efficiently allocate resources.
> 
> Marx went on to refine Adam Smith's theory. In his book Capital, Marx showed that Capitalism is the best system to generate profit and to promote technological advances. Marx is still "classical" in the sense that he does not even yet go into game theory or asymmetry of information etc. etc.


*Quote from Blam Blam the Clam:*
*" We don't live in a free market "

You were " Free " enough to purchase the internet service that provides
access to this Forum and " Free " enough to post on this Forum that 
utilizes " Free " market principals to subsist and provide YOU " Free "
service to post your Filthy Democrat/Marxist rants " Free " of removal
( So Far ) .....
You were " Free " enough to be able the food that sustained your Troll figure
that supports an " Itchy " wart on your nose so you could bitch about 
school districts and different " Zip Codes ".....

It appears you have quite a bundle of FREEDOMS here in the UNITED STATES.....

Now go on and Git.....Go on Git...Git on with your " Bad " self and Be The Parent 
you should be.....!*


----------



## blam (Jun 26, 2020)

nononono said:


> We don't live in a free market


Free market is a big word. There are many types of free market. If you quoted my full sentence you will see, i said : free market as described by Adam Smith in the wealth of nations. Key findings in his book were, when people are allowed to trade, overall welfare improves as people trade what they have excess with what they value. Therefore government should do most to promote free trade and not put up barriers to trade like quotas or taxes.


----------



## blam (Jun 26, 2020)

Bruddah IZ said:


> What makes a market not free?


There is no such thing as a perfect free market but is something approaches 80 or 90% free, we generally call it free. Free market benefits are simple, say you have a farmer makes cow milk. Another person a carpenter. The farmer have excess milk and the carpenter has excess furniture. They should both be allowed to trade and trade benefits both sides as they trade what they have excess with what they need. Government should stay out and maximize this trade until both parties voluntary stops. This ensures the best allocation of resources.

That's what is describe in the early chapters of any economics textbook. Sounds good in theory.

However, right away we can see problems called market failures:

1. Externalities. The cow farmer had his cows eat up all the "free" grass on our village hills and now our village lost all its nice green pastures. His cows also poop all over and making our natural habitat dirty. These causes the rest of us to not be able to enjoy our hills. These cost aren't factored into the farmer's cost of raising cows because they were available to him for free.

2. Game theory. The carpenter has non-perishable furniture. The farmer has perishable cow milk which he needs to trade in just a few days. The carpenter having bigger leverage can choose to hold out and not trade until the farmer;s time runs out with his expired milk. This "new" price is dictated by game theory (how well the carpenter plays his cards)  and not free market supply and demand.

and i can probably list about 10 more reasons but will stop here.


----------



## Lion Eyes (Jun 26, 2020)

Better education...
School vouchers have been suggested, initiatives put on the ballet, tax incentives debated to allow anyone who wants to attend private, chartered or higher academic public schools.
The teachers unions and the Democrats in California see that these initiatives are defeated.


----------



## nononono (Jun 26, 2020)

blam said:


> Free market is a big word. There are many types of free market. If you quoted my full sentence you will see, i said : free market as described by Adam Smith in the wealth of nations. Key findings in his book were, when people are allowed to trade, overall welfare improves as people trade what they have excess with what they value. Therefore government should do most to promote free trade and not put up barriers to trade like quotas or taxes.



*Oh Boy.....Business 101 with " Blam Blam "....go on....*
*
Set the Table Mr Business....!
*
*Psssssst ...You're way off base.*


----------



## nononono (Jun 26, 2020)

blam said:


> There is no such thing as a perfect free market but is something approaches 80 or 90% free, we generally call it free. Free market benefits are simple, say you have a farmer makes cow milk. Another person a carpenter. The farmer have excess milk and the carpenter has excess furniture. They should both be allowed to trade and trade benefits both sides as they trade what they have excess with what they need. Government should stay out and maximize this trade until both parties voluntary stops. This ensures the best allocation of resources.
> 
> That's what is describe in the early chapters of any economics textbook. Sounds good in theory.
> 
> ...




*OMG.......!






*


----------



## Hüsker Dü (Jun 26, 2020)

nononono said:


> *Oh Boy.....Business 101 with " Blam Blam "....go on....*
> 
> *Set the Table Mr Business....!*
> 
> *Psssssst ...You're way off base.*


Let's see your take?


----------



## nononono (Jun 26, 2020)

Hüsker Dü said:


> Let's see your take?


----------



## Bruddah IZ (Jun 26, 2020)

blam said:


> There is no such thing as a perfect free market but is something approaches 80 or 90% free, we generally call it free. Free market benefits are simple, say you have a farmer makes cow milk. Another person a carpenter. The farmer have excess milk and the carpenter has excess furniture. They should both be allowed to trade and trade benefits both sides as they trade what they have excess with what they need. Government should stay out and maximize this trade until both parties voluntary stops. This ensures the best allocation of resources.
> 
> That's what is describe in the early chapters of any economics textbook. Sounds good in theory.


The practice of what you just described works well too. My in laws have cattle.  Belted Galloways.  A hardy bunch that can handle the cold.  The poop is good for the paddock too.  When the grass is eaten up in one paddock, they move the cattle to the next.  As far as the carpenter is concerned, my brother in law builds beautiful straw bail homes and converts all his cars to veggie oil that he collects from the local Mc Donalds in Geraldine on the South Island of NZ.  New Zealand is typically in the top 3 Countries with the highest degree of Economic Freedom.


----------



## Bruddah IZ (Jun 26, 2020)

blam said:


> However, right away we can see problems called market failures:
> 
> 1. Externalities. The cow farmer had his cows eat up all the "free" grass on our village hills and now our village lost all its nice green pastures. His cows also poop all over and making our natural habitat dirty. These causes the rest of us to not be able to enjoy our hills. These cost aren't factored into the farmer's cost of raising cows because they were available to him for free.
> 
> ...


The problem is not market failures.  The biggest problem is that markets are not allowed to fail.  Bail outs and QE have been the cause of economic crisis back to the days of the Romans.  You should start clear back to page 1 of my Essential Economics thread.  

Otherwise you're just babbling.  Trying to sound smart while doing the exact opposite.


----------



## Bruddah IZ (Jun 26, 2020)

Hüsker Dü said:


> Let's see your take?


Oh please Huspola. You're not smart enough to know the first thing about business.  Blam is just your speed though.  Run along now.


----------



## Hüsker Dü (Jun 26, 2020)

nononono said:


>


Non-sequitur


----------



## nononono (Jun 26, 2020)

Hüsker Dü said:


> Non-sequitur


*F#$k it doesn't......that shows how stupid you are...!*


----------

