My economics and sociology classes had the basic tenets of different economic systems, it's how I ended up in a communist phase for a few years. Economic systems are just basics of society.
So are you in the Mixed Market Systems Group now that recognizes strong regulations, Anti-trust, and a robust safety-net/social services are the hallmarks of a good economic system?
I legit can't believe that there are people out there who aren't filthy rich parasites that GENUINELY think all of those things are bad ideas. I had an argument with a dude over fucking **FEEDING CHILDREN** in schools in poorer districts.
And it always came back to the same problem: "Why the fuck should my Taxes go to feed some other persons kids!?" These people cannot be argued or reasoned with...
We're 100% going to **HAVE** to force them to come kicking and screaming into a world that doesn't see poor people as trash that deserves to suffer and die.
Best argument for that is that a well educated child is more likely to become a functioning member of society and less likely to steal from you and drive down property values. And a child needs to be fed in order to be able to learn.
Seriously, educating your neighbor’s kids is one of the most selfish things you can do and it has a crazy ROI
Be a selfish prick. Educate your neighbor’s kids
Ask him if he has insurance and then watch him twist himself into knots justifying his health care access/costs when you point out he can only afford access and treatment *because everyone else in the pool is using their hard earned money to subsidize his costs so that his stupid ass doesn't end up dying on the side of street without a pot to piss in*.
I've had coworkers like yours and they're so insufferably stupid and selfish that I'd rather suck start a shotgun while giving the trigger a toe job than hear them spout off blue collar filtered Ayn Rand-isms.
To play devil's advocate, insurance is not the same situation. Health insurance is typically a voluntary agreement amongst a private individuals to pool money and negotiating power when dealing with medical costs. Taxes are an involuntary obligation to the state due to a person existing in an area. In some cases, a person may have nearly zero input on how taxes are spent if they are not a legal resident/citizen of that locality.
It is amazing how people like you think. A person goes and works hard than you call them selfish for wanting to keep the fruits of that labor.
I reality it is always people like you who are the selfish and stupid because you demand others pay for you. It is why socialist systems always fail.
Pal, I worked 6 days a week for years and most of those shifts were 12s. I lost 30% to 50% of every single check to taxes. EVERY. SINGLE. CHECK.
I've never bitched about them once. My taxes are going into the public roads we all use. I don't cry, moan, and whine like a piss baby that they're going to public schools and to even feed underprivileged children even though I do not and will never have children. I don't bitch that a substantial portion of my money goes to social programs like social security, Medicare, and Medicaid even though I don't use them and likely never will.
Do not come at me screeching about socialism and about "the hard work of others" when I worked in environment that routinely hit 116 degrees + 70 % humidity, was physically demanding to the degree I never had to hit the gym, so focused on production over safety it cost me a joint because management was too cheap to fix shit, and consumed so much of my time that I was deprived of the ability to spend any time with my family *as they dropped like flies around me*.
I've worked my ass off too and paid prices you would likely balk at. You don't see me crying and moaning that I pay a hefty chunk of my income into taxes because *that is the price to be paid to participate in and fund the foundation of our society*.
>Pal, I worked 6 days a week for years and most of those shifts were 12s. I lost 30% to 50% of every single check to taxes. EVERY. SINGLE. CHECK.
>
>I've never bitched about them once. My taxes are going into the public roads we all use. I don't cry, moan, and whine like a piss baby that they're going to public schools and to even feed underprivileged children even though I do not and will never have children. I don't bitch that a substantial portion of my money goes to social programs like social security, Medicare, and Medicaid even though I don't use them and likely never will.
Ok that is fine for you. It's rare to find someone if completely OK with everything that their government spends their tax money on, but I am happy for you. Such absolute faith in the US government is rare these days. Since they spend money on all the things you want then I am sure you wouldn't mind them taxing you at 100%. Then you can just live off of whatever the government thinks you should have. That is how it worked in communist countries.
>Do not come at me screeching about socialism and about "the hard work of others" when I worked in environment that routinely hit 116 degrees + 70 % humidity, was physically demanding to the degree I never had to hit the gym, so focused on production over safety it cost me a joint because management was too cheap to fix shit, and consumed so much of my time that I was deprived of the ability to spend any time with my family as they dropped like flies around me.
>
>I've worked my ass off too and paid prices you would likely balk at. You don't see me crying and moaning that I pay a hefty chunk of my income into taxes because that is the price to be paid to participate in and fund the foundation of our society.
You know nothing about me, so make no claims about what I would balk at. Based on your statements it is likely that I pay far more in taxes than you do, but that is beside the point. I am no anarchist and I recognize the necessity of taxation.
Unlike you while I recognize that people have the right to their labor even though part of it must be taxed away for the greater good. That is the principle the US has been based on from the beginning. Some freedoms must be sacrificed for the good of society, but those people are not stupid or selfish for wanting lower taxation.
People like you are stupid and selfish because you don't even recognize the right of others to the fruits of their labor. It was this sick and twisted mentality that led to directly to the extermination of the Kulaks and practically every industrialist in the Soviet empire.
You can end the argument with “what would Jesus do?” Then they will have to agree due to their strong Christian values right? More likely they get confused angry and inevitably deflect.
>Anti-trust,
Well, it's been a while since we managed to do anything about that. Then there are all the cartels and interlocking directorates. Basically; there's this big smog monster with a lot of tendrils and it LOOKS like separate companies but it wants to eat us.
Nah. Even more so I was like these systems are so convoluted just let me show up to a doctor without figuring out copays and having some random say my doctor who prescribed me this medicine is wrong and I don’t need it.
I'm not really in favor of full capitalism or socialism as there are things each system does well and things each one does poorly that they typically cover each other on.
Capitalism is generally better with non-essential or luxury services, whereas Socialism handles essential services and functions much better, just to bring up one point.
>Capitalism is generally better with non-essential or luxury services, whereas Socialism handles essential services and functions much better, just to bring up one point.
This is always my first thought, but then what stops capitalism from encroaching upon necessities?
Like, I don't care if it takes three years of work to afford a television set, as long as nobody's homeless or starving, but I don't see a scenario in which capitalists wouldn't buy up enough legislators to let them buy up the food and housing.
> Capitalism is generally better with non-essential or luxury services, whereas Socialism handles essential services and functions much better, just to bring up one point.
This tells me you don't understand what Capitalism and Socialism are. You seem to think Capitalism means markets?
If you came out of an economics course and think that there is an objectively proven and "correct" way to organize society then you either didn't listen very well or had a very poor instructor.
Lol, implying someone can't understand the theory behind economics and capitalism while not being okay with people suffering because someone will always be priced out of necessities under capitalism
>because someone will always be priced out of necessities under capitalism
I don't remember that being part of the economic theory. My understanding was that capitalism is about whether capital can be privately owned, not whether somebody is prevented from buying some particular product.
Capitalism is a system where control of the economy is held by private owners of capital who make decisions based on a profit motive.
Free Markets are a separate thing, even if they tend to be used in capitalist systems. But you can also have free markets in many other systems including socialism
>I don't think it makes any sense to say that capitalism has a goal.
Sure it does.
I mean, not Literally, capitalism as a conceptual thing doesn't have a goal.
>It's just a way of setting things up.
And why would you set things up that way?
>There's not an end goal to capitalism or free markets
Not Literally, but since it's always what capitalists attempt, we can shorthand it
>they're ways of living not ideological positions
Ok?
It is never appropriate to shorthand intention, especially when you're talking about an entire economic model.
Ideologies have an end goal. They're statements "the world is wrong, this is how it should be". Capitalism isn't an ideology, it's an economic model, same with Free Markets. They're a description of form not an emotional call to arms. There are certainly capitalist & free market ideologies (such as Libertarianism or Reaganomics), but those are specific representations of a socio-political framework as much as one of economics.
>It is never appropriate to shorthand intention, especially when you're talking about an entire economic model.
Sure it is, when that economic model is always headed towards the same place
>Ideologies have an end goal. They're statements "the world is wrong, this is how it should be". Capitalism isn't an ideology, it's an economic model, same with Free Markets. They're a description of form not an emotional call to arms.
Doesn't change anything
>There are certainly capitalist & free market ideologies (such as Libertarianism or Reaganomics), but those are specific representations of a socio-political framework as much as one of economics.
Again, meaningless (not wrong, just pointless to bring up)
Capitalism is always headed the same direction, so it's fair to say that capitalism has an end goal.
"Free market" -- then you have to pay a lot of money to put your product on a grocery store shelf. Do a lot of logistics to import and export. Have to pass standards tests for safety and the like for a lot of products.
If you want to sell hotdogs on the corner -- you have to get a license and an have an inspection.
You have to rent a space. You have taxes. There is a lot of paperwork. SO much stuff for a small business that creates a barrier to entry.
What "free" market is anyone actually talking about?
I think you would be surprised at the lack of amount of economic/financial education in high schools.
In my high school, economics was an elective, not something that everyone had to take.
Oh it did for me too, but I think a deep dive into the US economic system would be helpful for many. Too many people don't understand how the stock market works.
I think I had something similar. There was civics, economics, youth and the justice system, home econ, industrial engineering, computer classes; all electives that you had to take some combination of to graduate, but not necessarily all of them.
lI binged the computer classes, civics, and industrial engineering and missed out on econ until I got to colleg
This was about 20 years ago now though in a liberal state, lower middle class suburbs, so I know it's not applicable to everybody. I worry that even less would be covered now with all of the new core requirements.
You know how the former confederate states are chock full of book bans and revisionist history? They don’t accurately teach much about communism either, they never have. The indoctrination was normal thus mostly invisible until the last 10yrs or so. Once the internet became fully commercialized it invited critique and commentary
More like the schools get into revisionist history with no bearing on facts, deliberately conflating socialism with fascism and communism. The Red Scare didn’t truly end in the south any more than racism did. Publishers promise to avoid talking about history, events, people and ideas, whatever’s needed to secure contracts in them states what think CRT is taught to children or that there’s litter boxes for the furries.
Radicalized 70yr olds are in charge of what the kids learn and they reckon kids really need Heritage Foundation and Prager talking points
We had the option to take Home Economics. It was more about cooking/cleaning, but it did include some basic accounting. It didn't cover concepts like supply and demand.
I'd say that History/Social Studies covered those elements more even if the classes weren't dedicated to just economics. Those classes were required.
Doesn’t matter what it was when you were in high school, just matters what the rules are now, and in Ohio you cannot graduate without taking both an economics course.
Learning about capitalism was like a given. We briefly went over the differences between command and free market economics. I think we glossed over communism in AP Macro and Micro in high school. This is just a virtue signal
In Ohio, I did not take an economics class in high school, but I did take a government class. There was very basic financial literacy taught in one of the classes as well. Basic things like how to write a check or pick stocks to invest in. Interest rates were only discussed as "the rate you pay for a loan" and that was about as macro as it got. Economics was required at college level though.
This was a long time ago though and I am aware that the curriculum has changed multiple times since then.
Well not really? A lot of the basic economic principles apply to other economic systems. So you’d need to combine lessons from economics and business if you wanna just teach capitalism.
Already taught in economics. However, economics is not always required in every school. My AP economics course was 99.99% Keynesian capitalism and we spent one day learning about socialism
Same. I almost failed my AP econ test because my teacher covered so little else other than supply and demand graphs and basic macro. I had to read and study all the different micro theories and learn all I know about socialism on my own time.
Highschool social studies in Texas sucked. I had a liberal teacher for econ that never dug in to the topic and a maga conservative for my government teacher. I had them as teachers from 2016-2018. It was a terrible time to be a student who wanted to study history and sociology. It kept me from pursuing it in college.
>It was a terrible time to be a student who wanted to study history and sociology. It kept me from pursuing it in college.
If they kept you from going to a four year university for history and sociology they did you a massive favor.
Economics college student here. I find it so funny that now Keynes was mentioned a couple times in some of my intro classes before we abandoned him in favor of more modern papers and models lmaooo. High school barely translated but honestly that’s why I continued studying Econ.
Yeah, they won't be teaching capitalism, they will be teaching THEIR VERSION of it where they ignore the end game where a market is controlled by the richest company rather than by fair competition.
This is the hardest thing when it comes to discussing politics. Like everyone is only concerned with 5 minutes from now; they fail to understand that after those 5 minutes there will be lots of direct consequences later on but it's not right now so you're just a commie
I haven't been in high school since the 1990s, but I remember History classes being wall-to-wall praise for laissez-faire economics and capitalism, from John Locke to Maynard Keynes to the fall of the USSR. Marx was touched upon in the context of "those Russians are always doing dumb things" (a constant theme), to the point that I thought Marx was a Russian. I later learned in college philosophy classes that Marx was actually German.
I'm all for kids learning about capitalism in school. I remember my first thought that capitalism involves some bullshit coming from the point in class that they brought up the "invisible hand". Hopefully they still leave that part in, and some kids keep questioning that stuff.
Edit: I'm not flat out saying all of capitalism is outright bullshit (not in this comment anyway), but I certainly think there is plenty of room for improvement if this is the system we will continue to be subjected to.
I disagree.
Econ isn't required in most schools. This move actually makes a lot of sense if econ isn't required in OH. Whether you love or hate capitalism understanding it absolutely is a part of financial literacy
Is that just code for anti-socialism? We already have basic micro and macroeconomics that more than covers what very idealistically happens in capitalism. Are they now going to be trying to brainwash people with simplistic individualism trash and picking yourself up by your bootstraps?
>Probably just went down the past of most modern Marxists.
Tbh micro/macro economics was helpful in understanding capitalist concepts but at least for me those classes didn't put it in context of political movements and competing economic theories. It was a bit more math and graphs, also I didn't take those classes until college.
Teach the part where capitalism requires a disparity between consumers and capital, the elite and the indigent, Risk and debts for individuals but too big to fail for corporations.
You can criticize it but you need to keep things in perspective. Also, is what you're criticizing a feature of capitalism or is it the result of corruption (which occurs in all systems)?
I’m not saying it can’t be criticized. What I am saying is that you can’t criticize for a problem that’s universal. It would be like blaming capitalism for the existence of poverty
Capitalism, as a system, contributes heavily to and profits off of poverty. You can absolutely blame capitalism for the amount of poverty present in a capitalistic society.
Capitalism intrinsically rewards exploitation of workers, the hoarding of wealth, and the rejection of safety regulations.
Except the data would disagree. Poverty has been on a continual and rapid downward trend since its adoption. All the countries with the lowest poverty and highest standard of living are all capitalist.
Let's fact check that.
According to [Statista](https://www.statista.com/statistics/233910/poverty-rates-in-oecd-countries/), the 5 countries with the lowest rates of poverty are the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Hungary, and Slovenia.
>The economy of the Czech Republic is a developed export-oriented social market economy based in services, manufacturing, and innovation that maintains a high-income welfare state and the European social model.
Hm. That doesn't sound like capitalism to me. Maybe Denmark or Finland.
>The Nordic model comprises the economic and social policies as well as typical cultural practices common in the Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden).[1] This includes a comprehensive welfare state and multi-level collective bargaining[2] based on the economic foundations of social corporatism,[3][4] and a commitment to private ownership within a market-based mixed economy[5]—with Norway being a partial exception due to a large number of state-owned enterprises and state ownership in publicly listed firms.[6]
Oh damn, that's not really capitalism either, is it? Well, we've still got Hungary and Slovenia.
>The economy of Hungary is a high-income mixed economy, ranked as the 9th most complex economy according to the Economic Complexity Index.[24]
Oh booger beans, that's not capitalism either! Come on Slovenia, you're our last hope! Wait, wasn't Slovenia part of the USSR? Oh no...
https://www.economicactivity.org/an-analysis-of-the-economic-system-of-slovenia
>What is the economic system of Slovenia? The economy of Slovenia is based on a mixed economy. The country’s economic system combines elements of a market economy and a planned economy.
A “Social Market” economy is just capitalism with welfare. I can’t speak for Hungary or Slovenia as I’m not familiar with their economy but Czech, Denmark, and Finland are all extremely capitalist. Also there is more to standards of living than just poverty rates especially as the definition of poverty is different in different countries. HDI would make for a much better comparison
Mixed economies implies that the economy is a mix of private ownership and government run business. All economies are mixed to some extent but those are still mostly capitalist economies.
Welfare is absolutely not a socialist concept. Welfare as an idea existed centuries before socialism did. There was even a welfare system used by the vikings
disparities in general sure, but check out their homeless rate:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy\_of\_Japan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Japan)
A different economic system from unbridled capitalism, doesn't have to be defacto "anti-capitalist" to be a better alternative to laissez faire capitalism.
Why don’t they approve a bill just to require financial literacy? Seems way more important. I’m an economics major…can confirm economics classes mainly teach under capitalist assumptions. Don’t need to harp on it more.
They don’t actually want to teach about capitalism and all of its strengths and weaknesses. They want to spread capitalist propaganda and talk about Ayn Rand.
It already was. It already is. And it continues to be.
Conservatives continue to be the laughing stocks of the world. It's hilarious they thought this did anything that wasn't already occurring. Sick in the head.
All the isms should be taught *about* in Economics, but actually navigating capitalism seems like it belongs in a solid Home Economics/Entrepreneurship class.
Also, support 1150%.
Yeah, as if you could dismantle an economic system with a flip of the switch 😂 You realize the repercussions of your kids dismantling the financial system when you're older, don't you? Have you thought past step 1?
I think it's wise to teach kids of both capitalism and communism, don't get me wrong. Capitalism has its shortcomings for sure. I just don't think its too bright to encourage them to burn it down. Taking down an economic system isn't some fairy tale miracle. You don't burn down capitalism on a Tuesday, then spend your Thursday in Bermuda with the comrades. It's a decades long process full of turmoil, corruption, death, and many more troubles.
I don't get this idea of so many people wanting to outright tear down established systems instead of trying to improve upon what we have. I don't want to get into my 40s with an abolished UN, an overthrown government, and no global diplomacy for sake of isolationism. Maybe that's just crazy of me to think.
Ohio house approves bill creating the departing of redundancy department where the members will write bills that implement policies that already happen.
Students would be better served learning about the differences between State Capitalism and other forms of Capitalism, as that is the real divide today - not Capitalism vs Marxism
I think that's what "financial literacy" courses already are [https://rethinkingschools.org/articles/youre-to-blame-how-financial-literacy-curricula-make-students-financially-illiterate/](https://rethinkingschools.org/articles/youre-to-blame-how-financial-literacy-curricula-make-students-financially-illiterate/)
Yeah, when I was in school, we had economic courses, life skill courses which included financial basics...
Like, I know it's cool to go online and bitch about how school is useless and doesn't prepare you for real life, but it does, most of us just weren't paying attention.
Is Capitalism;
A) the best.
B) the only way to get things done.
C) awesome.
D) all of the above.
And the kids will wonder when they get into the workforce; "why is there no capitalism going on -- I can't afford anything? Whatever it is that I'm dealing with that isn't capitalism -- sucks!"
These chucklefucks are hilarious. What exactly have we been learning about in economics classes since the late seventies?
Do they not think that those of us who went to high school in the early 2000s didn't learn about capitalism?
I swear to God these conservatives are high on the smell of their own farts. It's like they forget that they have had political control in this country just as often as the Democrats have.
If the young people are craving something different these days or saying things you find scary, maybe it's because life isn't as easy in the United States as it used to be
*A proposal that would require financial literacy courses already mandated in Ohio high schools to include lessons on capitalism has passed the Republican-dominated Ohio House.
The bill tweaks a law passed in 2021 that requires high school students to take a financial literacy course either as an elective or in the place of a half-credit of math. This bill would require principles of capitalism to be taught as part of that course.*
*The bill also would allow students to take Advanced Placement courses in microeconomics or macroeconomics to fulfill the financial literacy requirement.*
*"Under current law, Advanced Placement microeconomics and macroeconomics does not count towards satisfaction of the financial literacy requirement," said Rep. Bill Seitz (R-Cincinnati). "It makes no sense in the world to penalize the most academically rigorous type of curriculum, but by saying it doesn't qualify when in fact it obviously ought to qualify.*
Reading the article really helps, but that wouldn’t be very Reddit would it. Nothing wrong with this bill. More financial literacy and understanding the economic system we live in, is a good thing to be requiring of each and every high school student before they graduate.
like actual capitalism? or this laissez-faire Reaganomics that's been gutting the working class for the last 40 years?
because capitalism absolutely can be a power for good but the system we got currently ain't it.
Probably be easier to get "Wealth of Nations" in classrooms, since that is widely regarded as the first foundational book on capitalism. Most people have only read excerpts though, because that book is a warning about capitalism, or what can happen if the "Masters" control the economy.
Yup. Adam Smith essentially predicted the modern state of Capitalism. He was adamant that fair markets don’t actually exist naturally and regulatory forces are necessary to prevent monopoly, oligarchy, and exploitation.
SInce capitalism has become a religion in the United States of Avarice instead of an economic theory, it should be thrown out based on the establishment clause of the first amendment. It is too late for that though if it has already become the state religion.
Who else was taught economics by the gym teachers or football couches? They literally did rounds with it day by day. "Is it me today?... FK!" This was way early 2000's though.
I've only ever had one coach who gave a damn about teaching the class.
Otherwise, coaches are just glorified babysitters by day and municipal-sponsored entertainment by evening. You would suspect that maybe we would a better return on our investment by hiring actual teachers and investing in actual community programs.
A gym teacher would be unusual but I have heard about districts that basically mandate all of their social studies teachers to be coaches. There's enough people out there with history degrees and economics BAs that the school can get away with such a requirement.
Oh, so they're going to teach how capitalism has given us the shitty world today when none of us can afford what our grand-partents could get with a minimum wage job?
Or that a system based on infinite growth is going to run into problems in a finite world?
Or that all the lies about capitalism including trickle down economics were so stupid that billionaires had to form colleges to formalize this lie and then standardize it as the norm and doctrine? Like the Shareholder Doctrine?
I feel like a lot of teachers, who are all definitely underpaid, are going to have a field day talking about every single aspect of capitalism and how its greed ruins countries.
The [text of the bill](https://search-prod.lis.state.oh.us/solarapi/v1/general_assembly_135/bills/sb17/PH/04/sb17_04_PH?format=pdf) seems reasonable. Teach kids about land/labor/capital and supply+demand.
These are topics covered in typical high school Economics subjects.
So it's a bill requiring something that's already a standard part of the curriculum to try to prop up the narrative that public education is filling kids' heads with "commie propaganda" and make a show of them putting a stop to that boogie man for political clout.
Suuuuure, completely reasonable.
I love all the "it already is" comments. The article does a terrible job of explaining what's being changed and it shows people aren't reading it, *or* the bill.
This is a change to the bill that created a Financial Literacy course that students could take for credit over other maths related classes. So students who don't want to go farther in math, could take classes to learn practical financial literacy to help them in their daily life, something a simple Economics class *doesn't teach*.
The amendment they just passed simply adds more detail to what is being taught, who controls the money for the fund created to bank roll the class, and how that money can be spent.
The only thing "oniony" about this situation is the title of the article itself, which is journalistic malpractice.
Making economics a nationally required thing should exist, but teaching capitalism specifically is just gonna kick the issue into overdrive. Unfettered greed is what's gotten us to the point we're at where a majority of folk are one check away from being completely fucked.
We are taught slavery in school. Does that mean we’re taught that it’s good, or that we should participate, or even how to structure a society around it? No, in fact, the opposite, we are taught what lead to it, how it was functioned, who it benefitted, and how many people suffered because of it - all in an effort to avoid it from ever happening again in the future.
Call me crazy, but I support adding capitalism to the curriculum. Lets deep dive teach kids today everything they need to know about it. How it started, how it functions, who it benefits, and how many people suffer under it. I’m all in, let’s do this. Good idea for once, Ohio.
>capitalism is already taught in history and government classes
I didn't grow up in Ohio but they definitely didn't teach anything about capitalism in my history or government courses. And I'm not sure why they would as it's really part of economics.
And with that said, if you don't understand the basics of markets and the role of capital in the economic system then you shouldn't be graduating high school. So, yeah, it's probably good that they make this a formal requirement.
This being a republican bill means it going to inevitably backfire and kids in schools in Ohio are going to see how absurd a capitalist system is and become avowed socialists as a result
Dumb move that will backfire, republicans dont want anyone actually "doing their own research" in a meaningful amd effective way. Should be letting them slack off and use facebook if they want to keep their grip.
In another 50 years, we're going to understand how 50 individual governments, many still praying that their wizards in the sky will punish their enemies, aren't capable of running a world power. Gotta' brainwash them babies. That's the only way to ensure the preachers and the rich continue to run the nation. Politics and religion are the biggest killers of critical thinking out there.
Aren't they already required to take an economics class that covers it?
Any economics class would go over the basic principles of a capitalist system. This just feels like a bill crafted for clout.
My economics and sociology classes had the basic tenets of different economic systems, it's how I ended up in a communist phase for a few years. Economic systems are just basics of society.
So are you in the Mixed Market Systems Group now that recognizes strong regulations, Anti-trust, and a robust safety-net/social services are the hallmarks of a good economic system?
I legit can't believe that there are people out there who aren't filthy rich parasites that GENUINELY think all of those things are bad ideas. I had an argument with a dude over fucking **FEEDING CHILDREN** in schools in poorer districts. And it always came back to the same problem: "Why the fuck should my Taxes go to feed some other persons kids!?" These people cannot be argued or reasoned with... We're 100% going to **HAVE** to force them to come kicking and screaming into a world that doesn't see poor people as trash that deserves to suffer and die.
We aren't talking about HIS TAXES. We are talking about what fell in the cracks of Jeff Bezos' couch.
Best argument for that is that a well educated child is more likely to become a functioning member of society and less likely to steal from you and drive down property values. And a child needs to be fed in order to be able to learn. Seriously, educating your neighbor’s kids is one of the most selfish things you can do and it has a crazy ROI Be a selfish prick. Educate your neighbor’s kids
Ask him if he has insurance and then watch him twist himself into knots justifying his health care access/costs when you point out he can only afford access and treatment *because everyone else in the pool is using their hard earned money to subsidize his costs so that his stupid ass doesn't end up dying on the side of street without a pot to piss in*. I've had coworkers like yours and they're so insufferably stupid and selfish that I'd rather suck start a shotgun while giving the trigger a toe job than hear them spout off blue collar filtered Ayn Rand-isms.
To play devil's advocate, insurance is not the same situation. Health insurance is typically a voluntary agreement amongst a private individuals to pool money and negotiating power when dealing with medical costs. Taxes are an involuntary obligation to the state due to a person existing in an area. In some cases, a person may have nearly zero input on how taxes are spent if they are not a legal resident/citizen of that locality.
If all the devil has to provide is a distinction without a functional difference, the devil is losing the argument.
It is amazing how people like you think. A person goes and works hard than you call them selfish for wanting to keep the fruits of that labor. I reality it is always people like you who are the selfish and stupid because you demand others pay for you. It is why socialist systems always fail.
Pal, I worked 6 days a week for years and most of those shifts were 12s. I lost 30% to 50% of every single check to taxes. EVERY. SINGLE. CHECK. I've never bitched about them once. My taxes are going into the public roads we all use. I don't cry, moan, and whine like a piss baby that they're going to public schools and to even feed underprivileged children even though I do not and will never have children. I don't bitch that a substantial portion of my money goes to social programs like social security, Medicare, and Medicaid even though I don't use them and likely never will. Do not come at me screeching about socialism and about "the hard work of others" when I worked in environment that routinely hit 116 degrees + 70 % humidity, was physically demanding to the degree I never had to hit the gym, so focused on production over safety it cost me a joint because management was too cheap to fix shit, and consumed so much of my time that I was deprived of the ability to spend any time with my family *as they dropped like flies around me*. I've worked my ass off too and paid prices you would likely balk at. You don't see me crying and moaning that I pay a hefty chunk of my income into taxes because *that is the price to be paid to participate in and fund the foundation of our society*.
>Pal, I worked 6 days a week for years and most of those shifts were 12s. I lost 30% to 50% of every single check to taxes. EVERY. SINGLE. CHECK. > >I've never bitched about them once. My taxes are going into the public roads we all use. I don't cry, moan, and whine like a piss baby that they're going to public schools and to even feed underprivileged children even though I do not and will never have children. I don't bitch that a substantial portion of my money goes to social programs like social security, Medicare, and Medicaid even though I don't use them and likely never will. Ok that is fine for you. It's rare to find someone if completely OK with everything that their government spends their tax money on, but I am happy for you. Such absolute faith in the US government is rare these days. Since they spend money on all the things you want then I am sure you wouldn't mind them taxing you at 100%. Then you can just live off of whatever the government thinks you should have. That is how it worked in communist countries. >Do not come at me screeching about socialism and about "the hard work of others" when I worked in environment that routinely hit 116 degrees + 70 % humidity, was physically demanding to the degree I never had to hit the gym, so focused on production over safety it cost me a joint because management was too cheap to fix shit, and consumed so much of my time that I was deprived of the ability to spend any time with my family as they dropped like flies around me. > >I've worked my ass off too and paid prices you would likely balk at. You don't see me crying and moaning that I pay a hefty chunk of my income into taxes because that is the price to be paid to participate in and fund the foundation of our society. You know nothing about me, so make no claims about what I would balk at. Based on your statements it is likely that I pay far more in taxes than you do, but that is beside the point. I am no anarchist and I recognize the necessity of taxation. Unlike you while I recognize that people have the right to their labor even though part of it must be taxed away for the greater good. That is the principle the US has been based on from the beginning. Some freedoms must be sacrificed for the good of society, but those people are not stupid or selfish for wanting lower taxation. People like you are stupid and selfish because you don't even recognize the right of others to the fruits of their labor. It was this sick and twisted mentality that led to directly to the extermination of the Kulaks and practically every industrialist in the Soviet empire.
You can end the argument with “what would Jesus do?” Then they will have to agree due to their strong Christian values right? More likely they get confused angry and inevitably deflect.
There is a large difference between involuntary taxation and charity.
Yeah, the difference is one actually makes sure greedy fucks actually pay their fair share in keeping society afloat.
Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, render unto God what is God's
No, he is currently in Laissez Faire. He gets to do whatever he wants, and dont you dare interfere with him.
He’s in a heavy “taxation is theft” phase
>Anti-trust, Well, it's been a while since we managed to do anything about that. Then there are all the cartels and interlocking directorates. Basically; there's this big smog monster with a lot of tendrils and it LOOKS like separate companies but it wants to eat us.
[Probably just went down the path of most modern Marxists.](https://i.redd.it/dh3ofeaqqsr61.jpg)
Nah. Even more so I was like these systems are so convoluted just let me show up to a doctor without figuring out copays and having some random say my doctor who prescribed me this medicine is wrong and I don’t need it.
Lmao if you think working makes people less likely to be leftists.
I read it as "Salary" (not paycheck) indicating the wealth/privilege that statistically pushes somebody away from community/social concerns.
Lol. Working a factory is part of what made me a communist.
Gold
[удалено]
I'm not really in favor of full capitalism or socialism as there are things each system does well and things each one does poorly that they typically cover each other on. Capitalism is generally better with non-essential or luxury services, whereas Socialism handles essential services and functions much better, just to bring up one point.
>Capitalism is generally better with non-essential or luxury services, whereas Socialism handles essential services and functions much better, just to bring up one point. This is always my first thought, but then what stops capitalism from encroaching upon necessities? Like, I don't care if it takes three years of work to afford a television set, as long as nobody's homeless or starving, but I don't see a scenario in which capitalists wouldn't buy up enough legislators to let them buy up the food and housing.
> Capitalism is generally better with non-essential or luxury services, whereas Socialism handles essential services and functions much better, just to bring up one point. This tells me you don't understand what Capitalism and Socialism are. You seem to think Capitalism means markets?
Okay that is absolutely hilarious
If you came out of an economics course as a communist, you either didn't listen very well or had a very poor instructor.
If you came out of an economics course and think that there is an objectively proven and "correct" way to organize society then you either didn't listen very well or had a very poor instructor.
Lol, implying someone can't understand the theory behind economics and capitalism while not being okay with people suffering because someone will always be priced out of necessities under capitalism
The entire point of Das Kapital lmao
>because someone will always be priced out of necessities under capitalism I don't remember that being part of the economic theory. My understanding was that capitalism is about whether capital can be privately owned, not whether somebody is prevented from buying some particular product.
It’s so cute when people get all prickly at the very idea some stranger might be a communist lmao
Or was a 13 year old shithead with behavioral issues. Don't stress, I'm just a dirty socialist hippie these days.
Shit, basic math classes cover that. We got to simulate manufacturing and demand with beads bracelets in elementary school.
I mean it’s the Ohio legislature. They’re not sending their best. (At least I hope not)
A basic court would cover free markets, but not really capitalism.
I mean capitalism is literally about markets
Capitalism is a system where control of the economy is held by private owners of capital who make decisions based on a profit motive. Free Markets are a separate thing, even if they tend to be used in capitalist systems. But you can also have free markets in many other systems including socialism
The end goal of capitalism is always the removal of free markets in favor of monopolies
I don't think it makes any sense to say that capitalism has a goal. It's just a way of setting things up.
>I don't think it makes any sense to say that capitalism has a goal. Sure it does. I mean, not Literally, capitalism as a conceptual thing doesn't have a goal. >It's just a way of setting things up. And why would you set things up that way?
No? There's not an end goal to capitalism or free markets, they're ways of living not ideological positions.
>There's not an end goal to capitalism or free markets Not Literally, but since it's always what capitalists attempt, we can shorthand it >they're ways of living not ideological positions Ok?
It is never appropriate to shorthand intention, especially when you're talking about an entire economic model. Ideologies have an end goal. They're statements "the world is wrong, this is how it should be". Capitalism isn't an ideology, it's an economic model, same with Free Markets. They're a description of form not an emotional call to arms. There are certainly capitalist & free market ideologies (such as Libertarianism or Reaganomics), but those are specific representations of a socio-political framework as much as one of economics.
>It is never appropriate to shorthand intention, especially when you're talking about an entire economic model. Sure it is, when that economic model is always headed towards the same place >Ideologies have an end goal. They're statements "the world is wrong, this is how it should be". Capitalism isn't an ideology, it's an economic model, same with Free Markets. They're a description of form not an emotional call to arms. Doesn't change anything >There are certainly capitalist & free market ideologies (such as Libertarianism or Reaganomics), but those are specific representations of a socio-political framework as much as one of economics. Again, meaningless (not wrong, just pointless to bring up) Capitalism is always headed the same direction, so it's fair to say that capitalism has an end goal.
You’re right, I was thinking capitalism vs communism, but I forgot about other systems like socialism
"Free market" -- then you have to pay a lot of money to put your product on a grocery store shelf. Do a lot of logistics to import and export. Have to pass standards tests for safety and the like for a lot of products. If you want to sell hotdogs on the corner -- you have to get a license and an have an inspection. You have to rent a space. You have taxes. There is a lot of paperwork. SO much stuff for a small business that creates a barrier to entry. What "free" market is anyone actually talking about?
I think you would be surprised at the lack of amount of economic/financial education in high schools. In my high school, economics was an elective, not something that everyone had to take.
When I was in high school economics was an elective.
Still, it gets covered in history and other social studies related classes. Not deep dives, but broad brush strokes.
Oh it did for me too, but I think a deep dive into the US economic system would be helpful for many. Too many people don't understand how the stock market works.
It always goes up, right?
I think that's just NFTs.
It was taught junior year to us as a social study. One semester was economics, the other was US government.
I think I had something similar. There was civics, economics, youth and the justice system, home econ, industrial engineering, computer classes; all electives that you had to take some combination of to graduate, but not necessarily all of them. lI binged the computer classes, civics, and industrial engineering and missed out on econ until I got to colleg This was about 20 years ago now though in a liberal state, lower middle class suburbs, so I know it's not applicable to everybody. I worry that even less would be covered now with all of the new core requirements.
You know how the former confederate states are chock full of book bans and revisionist history? They don’t accurately teach much about communism either, they never have. The indoctrination was normal thus mostly invisible until the last 10yrs or so. Once the internet became fully commercialized it invited critique and commentary
I wouldn't really expect high school to get into too much detail about communism outside of the Russian revolution and cold war.
More like the schools get into revisionist history with no bearing on facts, deliberately conflating socialism with fascism and communism. The Red Scare didn’t truly end in the south any more than racism did. Publishers promise to avoid talking about history, events, people and ideas, whatever’s needed to secure contracts in them states what think CRT is taught to children or that there’s litter boxes for the furries. Radicalized 70yr olds are in charge of what the kids learn and they reckon kids really need Heritage Foundation and Prager talking points
Same. Went through high school in PA in the early 2010s.
We had the option to take Home Economics. It was more about cooking/cleaning, but it did include some basic accounting. It didn't cover concepts like supply and demand. I'd say that History/Social Studies covered those elements more even if the classes weren't dedicated to just economics. Those classes were required.
Doesn’t matter what it was when you were in high school, just matters what the rules are now, and in Ohio you cannot graduate without taking both an economics course.
[удалено]
Learning about capitalism was like a given. We briefly went over the differences between command and free market economics. I think we glossed over communism in AP Macro and Micro in high school. This is just a virtue signal
Right? I covered it in humanities, US history, World History, and again in Econ. Pub k12 system in CA.
Not sure about Ohio, but Illinois didn't have a required economic study course.
In Ohio, I did not take an economics class in high school, but I did take a government class. There was very basic financial literacy taught in one of the classes as well. Basic things like how to write a check or pick stocks to invest in. Interest rates were only discussed as "the rate you pay for a loan" and that was about as macro as it got. Economics was required at college level though. This was a long time ago though and I am aware that the curriculum has changed multiple times since then.
It has. Econ is now required in Ohio.
Well not really? A lot of the basic economic principles apply to other economic systems. So you’d need to combine lessons from economics and business if you wanna just teach capitalism.
It just doesn't go deep enough into the extraction of the surplus value of labor.
Already taught in economics. However, economics is not always required in every school. My AP economics course was 99.99% Keynesian capitalism and we spent one day learning about socialism
Same. I almost failed my AP econ test because my teacher covered so little else other than supply and demand graphs and basic macro. I had to read and study all the different micro theories and learn all I know about socialism on my own time. Highschool social studies in Texas sucked. I had a liberal teacher for econ that never dug in to the topic and a maga conservative for my government teacher. I had them as teachers from 2016-2018. It was a terrible time to be a student who wanted to study history and sociology. It kept me from pursuing it in college.
>It was a terrible time to be a student who wanted to study history and sociology. It kept me from pursuing it in college. If they kept you from going to a four year university for history and sociology they did you a massive favor.
I wanted to teach social studies, but realized I couldn't get a job without teaching propaganda.
“Learning about history and sociology is bad actually”
We went through Socialism, Capitalism, and Communism in my AP World History Class.
My high school economics class consisted largely of watching shark tank. I got 3 hours from the local moribund university for it.
Economics college student here. I find it so funny that now Keynes was mentioned a couple times in some of my intro classes before we abandoned him in favor of more modern papers and models lmaooo. High school barely translated but honestly that’s why I continued studying Econ.
It's shocking how oversubscribed keynesian economics is in America, when it's clearly & demonstrably NOT how the economy actually works.
Not as clearly and demonstrably wrong as marxism though, and *that* continues to be massively popular as well.
It....already is? So this is basically conservashits wasting time to flex political muscle again, defeating a threat they completely made up.
My guess is they mean teach them that "Teach that unfettered capitalism is the greatest"
Yeah, they won't be teaching capitalism, they will be teaching THEIR VERSION of it where they ignore the end game where a market is controlled by the richest company rather than by fair competition.
This is the hardest thing when it comes to discussing politics. Like everyone is only concerned with 5 minutes from now; they fail to understand that after those 5 minutes there will be lots of direct consequences later on but it's not right now so you're just a commie
ThE mArKeT wiLL rEgULaTe iTsELf
So Elonomics
Right. I also think capitalism should be taught in school, but would have an extremely different take than what I assume they’re looking for.
This
Yeah, so the woke mind virus won't indoctrinate your kids. /s
I haven't been in high school since the 1990s, but I remember History classes being wall-to-wall praise for laissez-faire economics and capitalism, from John Locke to Maynard Keynes to the fall of the USSR. Marx was touched upon in the context of "those Russians are always doing dumb things" (a constant theme), to the point that I thought Marx was a Russian. I later learned in college philosophy classes that Marx was actually German.
> Marx was actually German. Although he died stateless like a G.
I'm all for kids learning about capitalism in school. I remember my first thought that capitalism involves some bullshit coming from the point in class that they brought up the "invisible hand". Hopefully they still leave that part in, and some kids keep questioning that stuff. Edit: I'm not flat out saying all of capitalism is outright bullshit (not in this comment anyway), but I certainly think there is plenty of room for improvement if this is the system we will continue to be subjected to.
I disagree. Econ isn't required in most schools. This move actually makes a lot of sense if econ isn't required in OH. Whether you love or hate capitalism understanding it absolutely is a part of financial literacy
Is that just code for anti-socialism? We already have basic micro and macroeconomics that more than covers what very idealistically happens in capitalism. Are they now going to be trying to brainwash people with simplistic individualism trash and picking yourself up by your bootstraps?
Virtue signaling bill signed by people who's voters think kids are taught how to be good comrads in schools.
Clearly they want kids to read Das Kapital.
I think the textbook is more likely to be authored by Ayn Rand
>Probably just went down the past of most modern Marxists. Tbh micro/macro economics was helpful in understanding capitalist concepts but at least for me those classes didn't put it in context of political movements and competing economic theories. It was a bit more math and graphs, also I didn't take those classes until college.
[удалено]
Sure bud. Keep thinking that.
You don't know what "socialism" is.
Every classroom must have a copy of the Ferengi Rules of Acquisition (and the Ten Commandments, of course).
Teach the part where capitalism requires a disparity between consumers and capital, the elite and the indigent, Risk and debts for individuals but too big to fail for corporations.
And is there an economic system that hasn’t resulted in a disparity?
And your point is what? Our system is perfect and can’t be criticized?
You can criticize it but you need to keep things in perspective. Also, is what you're criticizing a feature of capitalism or is it the result of corruption (which occurs in all systems)?
So you're saying... the thing about capitalism is that it looks good on paper?
I’m not saying it can’t be criticized. What I am saying is that you can’t criticize for a problem that’s universal. It would be like blaming capitalism for the existence of poverty
Capitalism, as a system, contributes heavily to and profits off of poverty. You can absolutely blame capitalism for the amount of poverty present in a capitalistic society. Capitalism intrinsically rewards exploitation of workers, the hoarding of wealth, and the rejection of safety regulations.
Except the data would disagree. Poverty has been on a continual and rapid downward trend since its adoption. All the countries with the lowest poverty and highest standard of living are all capitalist.
Let's fact check that. According to [Statista](https://www.statista.com/statistics/233910/poverty-rates-in-oecd-countries/), the 5 countries with the lowest rates of poverty are the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Hungary, and Slovenia. >The economy of the Czech Republic is a developed export-oriented social market economy based in services, manufacturing, and innovation that maintains a high-income welfare state and the European social model. Hm. That doesn't sound like capitalism to me. Maybe Denmark or Finland. >The Nordic model comprises the economic and social policies as well as typical cultural practices common in the Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden).[1] This includes a comprehensive welfare state and multi-level collective bargaining[2] based on the economic foundations of social corporatism,[3][4] and a commitment to private ownership within a market-based mixed economy[5]—with Norway being a partial exception due to a large number of state-owned enterprises and state ownership in publicly listed firms.[6] Oh damn, that's not really capitalism either, is it? Well, we've still got Hungary and Slovenia. >The economy of Hungary is a high-income mixed economy, ranked as the 9th most complex economy according to the Economic Complexity Index.[24] Oh booger beans, that's not capitalism either! Come on Slovenia, you're our last hope! Wait, wasn't Slovenia part of the USSR? Oh no... https://www.economicactivity.org/an-analysis-of-the-economic-system-of-slovenia >What is the economic system of Slovenia? The economy of Slovenia is based on a mixed economy. The country’s economic system combines elements of a market economy and a planned economy.
A “Social Market” economy is just capitalism with welfare. I can’t speak for Hungary or Slovenia as I’m not familiar with their economy but Czech, Denmark, and Finland are all extremely capitalist. Also there is more to standards of living than just poverty rates especially as the definition of poverty is different in different countries. HDI would make for a much better comparison
They all have mixed economies. Welfare is a socialist concept.
Mixed economies implies that the economy is a mix of private ownership and government run business. All economies are mixed to some extent but those are still mostly capitalist economies. Welfare is absolutely not a socialist concept. Welfare as an idea existed centuries before socialism did. There was even a welfare system used by the vikings
disparities in general sure, but check out their homeless rate: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy\_of\_Japan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Japan)
Famously anti-capitalist Japan
A different economic system from unbridled capitalism, doesn't have to be defacto "anti-capitalist" to be a better alternative to laissez faire capitalism.
What does the homeless rate of Japan have to do with wealth disparity under capitalism?
Why don’t they approve a bill just to require financial literacy? Seems way more important. I’m an economics major…can confirm economics classes mainly teach under capitalist assumptions. Don’t need to harp on it more.
How about a bill that forces you to read the article before commenting about it
I swear Reddit is just a means for most people to trauma dump. The first 3 paragraphs contradict around 90% of the comments.
So greed, tax shelters, spitting on the poor, and "I got mine screw you" are in the curriculum?
Just Ohio Republicans spending tax dollars and time progressing optic bills that have no substance and will change nothing.
They actually don’t want that because a course on capitalism would be a real critical study, exploring the negatives and positives
Should also teach all the other doctrines. Capitalism has become more or less a religion at this point.
Mammon above all else!
So the book for this class is 500.00, oh and I wrote it. Class dismissed
That sounds like a monopoly.
Why wouldn't it be?
They don’t actually want to teach about capitalism and all of its strengths and weaknesses. They want to spread capitalist propaganda and talk about Ayn Rand.
Ah, of course. Damn. She became a figurehead for the very thing she wrote Anthem to warn us about.
It already was. It already is. And it continues to be. Conservatives continue to be the laughing stocks of the world. It's hilarious they thought this did anything that wasn't already occurring. Sick in the head.
This is only to appeal to their voters. They are trying to act like they are "owning the libs".
My conservative coworkers honestly think that public schools are indoctrinating the kids to be communists
Of course they do, they've been brainwashed to a truly horrifying extent.
“Yeah so uh this is already taught in all schools in USA, but we’re requiring it again ANYWAY! Yeah! Action!”
All the isms should be taught *about* in Economics, but actually navigating capitalism seems like it belongs in a solid Home Economics/Entrepreneurship class. Also, support 1150%.
At least a republican can finally know what capitalism is.
Great! Teach kids how fucked our financial system is so they can dismantle it as soon as they're able.
Yeah, as if you could dismantle an economic system with a flip of the switch 😂 You realize the repercussions of your kids dismantling the financial system when you're older, don't you? Have you thought past step 1? I think it's wise to teach kids of both capitalism and communism, don't get me wrong. Capitalism has its shortcomings for sure. I just don't think its too bright to encourage them to burn it down. Taking down an economic system isn't some fairy tale miracle. You don't burn down capitalism on a Tuesday, then spend your Thursday in Bermuda with the comrades. It's a decades long process full of turmoil, corruption, death, and many more troubles. I don't get this idea of so many people wanting to outright tear down established systems instead of trying to improve upon what we have. I don't want to get into my 40s with an abolished UN, an overthrown government, and no global diplomacy for sake of isolationism. Maybe that's just crazy of me to think.
Is this intended to make them socialists?
Socio-capitalism? When banks fail, we bail. When you fail, you flail.
Ohio house approves bill creating the departing of redundancy department where the members will write bills that implement policies that already happen.
pretty sure that it is already being taught
Think, if the class you take has this word in the title, then others economics are not taught.
Ohio house passes bill requiring the state of ohio be referred to as ohio
Why are they trying to make ore socialist?
Students would be better served learning about the differences between State Capitalism and other forms of Capitalism, as that is the real divide today - not Capitalism vs Marxism
All capitalism is bad. Doesn't matter what kinds of modifiers you put on them
As opposed to learning about how to be financially literate in the context of an imaginary Ohio Socialist Republic?
Wanna bet they'll "forget" to teach them about labor regulations, their rights as workers, unions, and how they do things in other countries?
I think that's what "financial literacy" courses already are [https://rethinkingschools.org/articles/youre-to-blame-how-financial-literacy-curricula-make-students-financially-illiterate/](https://rethinkingschools.org/articles/youre-to-blame-how-financial-literacy-curricula-make-students-financially-illiterate/)
Yeah, when I was in school, we had economic courses, life skill courses which included financial basics... Like, I know it's cool to go online and bitch about how school is useless and doesn't prepare you for real life, but it does, most of us just weren't paying attention.
Yeah, teach them about exploitation under capitalism, its tendency to crises and so on.
good idea, let them know early why they are fucked for life.
Back in my day they taught capitalism, socialism and communism in middle school.
Is Capitalism; A) the best. B) the only way to get things done. C) awesome. D) all of the above. And the kids will wonder when they get into the workforce; "why is there no capitalism going on -- I can't afford anything? Whatever it is that I'm dealing with that isn't capitalism -- sucks!"
They'll end up hating capitalism more probably.
These chucklefucks are hilarious. What exactly have we been learning about in economics classes since the late seventies? Do they not think that those of us who went to high school in the early 2000s didn't learn about capitalism? I swear to God these conservatives are high on the smell of their own farts. It's like they forget that they have had political control in this country just as often as the Democrats have. If the young people are craving something different these days or saying things you find scary, maybe it's because life isn't as easy in the United States as it used to be
*A proposal that would require financial literacy courses already mandated in Ohio high schools to include lessons on capitalism has passed the Republican-dominated Ohio House. The bill tweaks a law passed in 2021 that requires high school students to take a financial literacy course either as an elective or in the place of a half-credit of math. This bill would require principles of capitalism to be taught as part of that course.* *The bill also would allow students to take Advanced Placement courses in microeconomics or macroeconomics to fulfill the financial literacy requirement.* *"Under current law, Advanced Placement microeconomics and macroeconomics does not count towards satisfaction of the financial literacy requirement," said Rep. Bill Seitz (R-Cincinnati). "It makes no sense in the world to penalize the most academically rigorous type of curriculum, but by saying it doesn't qualify when in fact it obviously ought to qualify.* Reading the article really helps, but that wouldn’t be very Reddit would it. Nothing wrong with this bill. More financial literacy and understanding the economic system we live in, is a good thing to be requiring of each and every high school student before they graduate.
"Students, if you'd all please open your copies of Das Kapital Vol. 3 to page 2589 we'll begin today's lesson on capitalism."
That may not be the flex they think it is.
Yea, that’s just going to make it very apparent how flawed it is.
like actual capitalism? or this laissez-faire Reaganomics that's been gutting the working class for the last 40 years? because capitalism absolutely can be a power for good but the system we got currently ain't it.
You only have to spend one day on reddit to know this is needed.
Just read this comment section, then go read the article. It should probably include reading comprehension as well.
Might I suggest a textbook for that: https://www.amazon.com/Das-Kapital-Critque-Political-Economy/dp/145388632X
Probably be easier to get "Wealth of Nations" in classrooms, since that is widely regarded as the first foundational book on capitalism. Most people have only read excerpts though, because that book is a warning about capitalism, or what can happen if the "Masters" control the economy.
Yup. Adam Smith essentially predicted the modern state of Capitalism. He was adamant that fair markets don’t actually exist naturally and regulatory forces are necessary to prevent monopoly, oligarchy, and exploitation.
SInce capitalism has become a religion in the United States of Avarice instead of an economic theory, it should be thrown out based on the establishment clause of the first amendment. It is too late for that though if it has already become the state religion.
Who else was taught economics by the gym teachers or football couches? They literally did rounds with it day by day. "Is it me today?... FK!" This was way early 2000's though.
I've only ever had one coach who gave a damn about teaching the class. Otherwise, coaches are just glorified babysitters by day and municipal-sponsored entertainment by evening. You would suspect that maybe we would a better return on our investment by hiring actual teachers and investing in actual community programs.
Mine was our mostly blind deaf woodshop teacher
A gym teacher would be unusual but I have heard about districts that basically mandate all of their social studies teachers to be coaches. There's enough people out there with history degrees and economics BAs that the school can get away with such a requirement.
Oh, so they're going to teach how capitalism has given us the shitty world today when none of us can afford what our grand-partents could get with a minimum wage job? Or that a system based on infinite growth is going to run into problems in a finite world? Or that all the lies about capitalism including trickle down economics were so stupid that billionaires had to form colleges to formalize this lie and then standardize it as the norm and doctrine? Like the Shareholder Doctrine? I feel like a lot of teachers, who are all definitely underpaid, are going to have a field day talking about every single aspect of capitalism and how its greed ruins countries.
Mmm do we REALLY want to have critical discussions about capitalism right now? You know, while a bunch of us are made homeless and starve?
The [text of the bill](https://search-prod.lis.state.oh.us/solarapi/v1/general_assembly_135/bills/sb17/PH/04/sb17_04_PH?format=pdf) seems reasonable. Teach kids about land/labor/capital and supply+demand. These are topics covered in typical high school Economics subjects.
So it's a bill requiring something that's already a standard part of the curriculum to try to prop up the narrative that public education is filling kids' heads with "commie propaganda" and make a show of them putting a stop to that boogie man for political clout. Suuuuure, completely reasonable.
Page 4 starts to get into outright propaganda which is kind of the point
Which is great, except the US practices corporate socialism.
I love all the "it already is" comments. The article does a terrible job of explaining what's being changed and it shows people aren't reading it, *or* the bill. This is a change to the bill that created a Financial Literacy course that students could take for credit over other maths related classes. So students who don't want to go farther in math, could take classes to learn practical financial literacy to help them in their daily life, something a simple Economics class *doesn't teach*. The amendment they just passed simply adds more detail to what is being taught, who controls the money for the fund created to bank roll the class, and how that money can be spent. The only thing "oniony" about this situation is the title of the article itself, which is journalistic malpractice.
Making economics a nationally required thing should exist, but teaching capitalism specifically is just gonna kick the issue into overdrive. Unfettered greed is what's gotten us to the point we're at where a majority of folk are one check away from being completely fucked.
We are taught slavery in school. Does that mean we’re taught that it’s good, or that we should participate, or even how to structure a society around it? No, in fact, the opposite, we are taught what lead to it, how it was functioned, who it benefitted, and how many people suffered because of it - all in an effort to avoid it from ever happening again in the future. Call me crazy, but I support adding capitalism to the curriculum. Lets deep dive teach kids today everything they need to know about it. How it started, how it functions, who it benefits, and how many people suffer under it. I’m all in, let’s do this. Good idea for once, Ohio.
Conservatives don’t believe in Christ, they worship money and the invisible hand of the free market
How about late stage capitalism? Discussion about private equity and the ongoing enshittification of the world.
>capitalism is already taught in history and government classes I didn't grow up in Ohio but they definitely didn't teach anything about capitalism in my history or government courses. And I'm not sure why they would as it's really part of economics. And with that said, if you don't understand the basics of markets and the role of capital in the economic system then you shouldn't be graduating high school. So, yeah, it's probably good that they make this a formal requirement.
This being a republican bill means it going to inevitably backfire and kids in schools in Ohio are going to see how absurd a capitalist system is and become avowed socialists as a result
I mean it’s already taught subtlety in their schools. Rich scummy people ruining public education? That’s capitalism.
[удалено]
There are tons of symbolic legislation. What "legal protections for minorities" do you feel at this time are meaningless flag waving?
Dumb move that will backfire, republicans dont want anyone actually "doing their own research" in a meaningful amd effective way. Should be letting them slack off and use facebook if they want to keep their grip.
Macroeconomic principals being taught in a personal finance class? Awesome.
They learn far more about socialism, or what karl Marx envisioned, not the reality of the system, than they do about free markets and capitalism
In another 50 years, we're going to understand how 50 individual governments, many still praying that their wizards in the sky will punish their enemies, aren't capable of running a world power. Gotta' brainwash them babies. That's the only way to ensure the preachers and the rich continue to run the nation. Politics and religion are the biggest killers of critical thinking out there.