[ThisWillDestroyYou]

Originally Posted by dr2005

With respect, I think you're getting your terminology mixed up. What you're referring to sounds more like the theory of corporatocracy as opposed to corporatism, which is a social theory based on groups combining based on shared interests.

First of all, there's no need to add "with respect." It is implied through communicating that people are being respectful, despite differences. Also, I tend to ignore your posts, because seeing you previously in the religious forums, I do not expect to change your mind, on any topic, ever (but that isn't my goal here). And last thing before I continue, the response you chose to respond to was not directed towards you, nor was it directed toward the public. It was a response to a single person, and I'd expect them to defend their case, not you.

Anyway, I did not confuse my terms.

Corporatocracy is relatively similar to the way some (independents, libertarians, anarchists, etc.) people use the word corporatism. In corporatism, the society, or "state" is controlled by large interest groups. These large interest groups are maintained and funded by large corporations. We refer to it as corporatism, because our country is controlled by these interest groups, which then the government funds the corporations that fund these select groups. The government spends roughly 50% more on corporation subsidies than on individual welfare.

Originally Posted by dr2005

In any event, the claim that the United States of America (or indeed any modern economy) is in fact a corporatocracy is unsubstantiated thus far. The last officially recognised corporatocracy was the British South Africa Company in the 1920s.

Officially recognized by whom? Governments? Federally funded scholars and researchers?

Originally Posted by dr2005

Also, responsibility for education funding and governance is primarily at state level, with limited intervention from the federal government and most decisions made at school board level. So even if we were to assume that the DoE is indeed "corrupted by corporations", they would have limited impact upon the education system proper.

At the end of your post, you seem to be a tad adamant about sources. So, please, show me a source other than wikipedia. Decisions are certainly made at State levels, but I'd argue they primarily are not. Why? Because they have federal expectations to hold up to. E.G. SATs, and a curriculum that allows students to go to colleges that have federal requirements, as well. It is funded by the state, to a point, but you have to look at the larger picture.

Originally Posted by dr2005

See above. Also, equality under the free market is conditional upon all participants having equality in the first place. That seldom, if ever, happens.

I think this is a little misguided. But it's also too broad of a statement to understand what you are getting at. Give me an example. It may be a little to idealistic at this point, I'd agree. It'd take baby steps to achieve free market equality. However, I'd argue a free market is the ONLY way to achieve equality in the first place. The only reason it'd be difficult with our current economics is because of how the government has been involving itself in the past 200 years. Namely the last century.

Originally Posted by dr2005

Actually, the private sector's track record in carrying out public functions has been very mixed to say the least. There have been frequent stories about private contractors working in the security sector having problems, most notably G4S (of the Olympics security shortfall debacle which resulted in the Armed Forces stepping in, followed by allegations of claiming fees for prisoners it wasn't actually monitoring), and the private sector's role in public transport in the UK has been pretty farcical as well, to name but 2 examples. I have worked in the private sector my entire working life, and while the public sector leaves a lot to be desired at times the private sector is no better.

I think you are missing the point. In a free market, people choose the winners AND losers. Not the government. Let's say we became a free market tomorrow. We kept all of our DMV employees and started privately funding the DMV. Now, let's say, the DMV does not improve in quality. What do we do? We stop funding the DMV. What happens to the DMV then? It's removed. We are no longer forced to pay for a defunct department. So, what do we do? Well, we have this wise entrepreneur who starts another DMV-like system. We are skeptical, but we start giving him money, and slowly start funding his ideas. His ideas run better, and smoother than the DMV. Do you see where I am going? Competition is good. It allows us to allocate our money to where it WORKS. Don't get me wrong, I do not think free market people are going to fix everything instantaneously, but I think it allows us to put our money where it is earned, rather than where it is taken and given to a BS system.

However, in defense of this, the DMV out where I live is good. I just use this as an example, because I know how some people feel about it. I'm more about people having options, rather than being held at the threat of arrest for not wanting to do or pay for something they don't want or use.

Originally Posted by dr2005

As for the NSA and the healthcare website, it's probably a combination of requiring particular expertise on a short-term basis and Congress not exactly giving the current administration much money to work with...

I appreciate you responding to these. However, I believe, in the case of the ACA website, if they hired privatized citizens to create it initially, it would have done better. Why? Because, think of it this way: I'm a small little web developing company called AWD (fictional company). The government comes to me and says, "Hey, I want you to create the ACA website." In this case, I would WANT to do a good job. Why? Because let's say I do well on the ACA website, what does this mean for the future of my company? The government will come pay me again to design more websites. What about government employees? Well, they may get a pat on the back, or forgotten. My mom and stepdad both work for the government. My grandpa did to. I've seen this happen first hand. You want to know what they got for doing their jobs well? A basket of treats and trophies that cost a few bucks.

Originally Posted by dr2005

Employers have always valued work experience over education - this is not a new phenomenon.

I had not said that this was a new phenomenon. What I am saying is that education is being devalued because they are finding colleges make students self-entitled. They'd rather the student get out in the workforce out of high school. Regardless, we still see education as a requirement in many places, ironically. However, you end up in a catch-22 after graduation. You need experience to get in. Generally about 2-5 years of experience, even at low-end jobs. So, what do we have? People employed making 7.50 an hour, living at home, and working at McDonalds with tens of thousands of dollars in debt from a bachelor degree that gave them nothing. Then again, if they work part time they get approximately $55K in assistance from the government (which if this is the case, why would they ever want to move up? Why would they want to be an entrepreneur?).

Originally Posted by dr2005

What is new is that we've been mired in economic stagnation (to put it mildly) since the 2007 banking crisis dragged the whole global economy down the toilet. It's not so much a question of problems with the education system so much as a fundamental lack of jobs, or funding for new business ideas. Various other countries (including Germany, which has a varied approach to education including defined vocational pathways) have struggled with this as well - it's not just a US-specific problem.

I agree. However, I'd argue that if we had removed our federal taxes, enforcing laws that make it difficult for small business owners, and allowed us to choose winners and losers in the economy (rather than the government granting billions of tax payer money to corporate companies and banks, and as it appears to be coming, insurance companies), we'd have a more stable economy. It'd allow for more entrepreneurs. You have to look at why we are in this situation to begin with.

Originally Posted by dr2005

With all due respect, debating etiquette is that it's for the person raising a claim to provide supporting evidence for it. You should therefore provide some justification for your claim of corporatocracy, rather than asserting that dissenting opinion is merely the result of "indoctrination".

I'm sorry, but this is similar to what you've done this entire post (again, no need for stated respect -- I don't really deserve any anyways). I don't find it necessary to show how we've reached corporatism. It's clear we are controlled by lobbying interest groups. And it is clear who controls those groups. Nor would I call my response a debate. I'd just call it a response with dissenting ideas. I don't really care to be "right." I just care to get people to think about what they believe.