The "Poverty Trap" budget

[Chris]

That makes much more sense to, thanks for expanding.
A potential downside I see though would be that the improvements (that
would I have no doubt) accrue to the larger, urban schools where
competition existed ,would result in relatively inferior level of education
provided to the country school with 14 children. This is more than likely
the case at present anyway (multiple ages groups in the same class and
little competition between the teachers themselves) and you can't just
spend a fortune on creating a competing school for competition's
sake.

I agree that competition will not solve all the problems of the education
system, but I don't think that bad schools will become worse. Also, on the
small country school, while there certainly are ages mixed in class, the
class sizes are generally very small. My wife went to a country primary
school with about 15 kids and when she got to secondary school she was way ahead of her "towny" class mates.

Seeing as you've got your very first point wrong (private schools not
restricted), I don't really have the time or inclination to help you to
develop an understanding of the facts. So let's save each other a bit of
time. I'm not an education expert. You're not an education expert. We're
not going to solve the problems of Ireland's education system with a few
posts on a bulletin board.

Well, in that case you only had 4 factors and not five, unless you are
willing to point to a fifth one. I don't think anybody here is pretending
to solve any problems on an internet forum, it is a discussion site where
people discuss things.

You have a flawed assumption that earning opportunities are directly
related to economic achievement. In my experience, earning opportunities
are linked to the name and status of the school as to academic achievement.

I do not believe that it is flawed at all. Simply going to a private
secondary school has little to no effect on your prospects to get a job or
earn more money. Employers generally take into account the third level
qualification and results from the interview itself, not whether the
applicant went to a private school.

Wrong. It's not income taxes that pay for the public system - it is ALL
taxes, including VAT, customs and excise, motor tax. capital gains tax,
corporation tax etc etc.

Absolutely. And are you telling me that with all the luxury items that rich
people spend their money on, they do not pay the lion's share of VAT or
VRT. A neighbour of mine drives a nice Mercedes CLS, where his VAT and VRT
bill came to about €40,000 (which is more than the average family car) and
his road tax is over €1000. Rich people are often business owners, and are
most likely to be investing larger sums of money, which means that they pay
most of the corporate taxes and CGT. How many poor or even middle class
people do you think invest money or run large businesses? To suggest that
poor and middle class people pay anywhere near as much total tax as rich
people would also have to suppose that the income gap is nowhere near as
high as it is said to be.
Rich people and the companies they run pay the bulk of all taxes, it's as
simple as that.

Not the one-trick-pony answer-for-all-seasons competition gig again. How
about instead of a Pavlovian response, we look at what actually works in
other countries, such as the Finnish system - which is producing the best
education outcomes in the world. They don't have or need competition to
produce the best educated students in the world.

Pavlovian response my backside. There is endless proof that competition in
a non-interfered environment results in huge benefits to both the producers
and consumers of goods and services, but it seems to be socialist and Labour policy to simply ignore basic economics. It is your kind of response, i.e. that only government can solve certain problems, that is pavlovian and totally baseless.

I have no problem implementing things that worked for Finland, but high
pay, training and unionization are not the factors, as these are also in
place in Ireland. What I have a problem with is government forcing a
monopoly on the public and not giving the public a choice.

Why are you so opposed to introducing competition that works perfectly well
in all other aspects of non-interfered economic life? What would the
downside be to allowing people to choose whether they send their children
to a state run school or privately run school through a voucher system?

 

[demoivre]

Children of wealthy families get to pay for better education services, and therefore get better opportunities to create wealth, and therefore get to pay for better education for their families.

Plenty of not so wealthy families prioritise their kids education. €6k or thereabouts would pay the fees for a kid in a grind school for a year. A "poor" couple on welfare spend €6,314 a year if they are both 20 a day smokers. ( €8.65 a day x 2 x 365)

 

[Firefly]

Plenty of not so wealthy families prioritise their kids education. €6k or thereabouts would pay the fees for a kid in a grind school for a year. A "poor" couple on welfare spend €6,314 a year if they are both 20 a day smokers. ( €8.65 a day x 2 x 365)

Private schools also cost a lot less than the price of sending a child to creche. OK, there are fancy uniforms to think about, but no nappies

 

[Yachtie]

Because it promotes cross-generational inequity. Children of wealthy families get to pay for better education services, and therefore get better opportunities to create wealth, and therefore get to pay for better education for their families.

What is your gripe with those better off??? Based on your arguments on this thread, a top brain surgeon and a cleaner should enjoy the same living standard. It was pointed out already that a top surgeon pays a lot more tax (directly and indirectly) than a cleaner yet is entitled to the same level of public services.

There is nothing stopping a child from a disadvantaged area from doing well in public (non-private) education and doing well in life. Same as there is no guarantee that a child born into a wealthy family will do well. How is this creating inequity?

 

[Complainer]

Plenty of not so wealthy families prioritise their kids education. €6k or thereabouts would pay the fees for a kid in a grind school for a year. A "poor" couple on welfare spend €6,314 a year if they are both 20 a day smokers. ( €8.65 a day x 2 x 365)

Ah the stereotypical smoking and drinking welfare recipient - don't forget to have a dig about spending on Sky and flat-screen TVs while you're up there on the high moral ground.

I must say I love posts like this...they make me warm inside. The single biggest responsibility a parent has, IMO, is to give their children the best start in life and it looks like your parents have done this. I'm glad that you "fit in just fine, and had no problem being accepted by my class mates, teachers or the nuns who ran the place." In fact your parents and yourself if anything should have been more respected as it is obviously a lot easier for wealthy parents to send their children to the same school.

I hate posts like this, because they will perpetuate a cop-out on poor quality education for the masses. They create a scenario where decent education is only expected if you pay out €6k a year (or €26k a year, when the Minister gets round to charging the full economic cost). We need to create a situation where ALL kids get the best possible start in life, as occurs in Finland.

Well, in that case you only had 4 factors and not five, unless you are
willing to point to a fifth one. I don't think anybody here is pretending
to solve any problems on an internet forum, it is a discussion site where
people discuss things.

Five factors

1. Very, very few private schools
2. well paid teachers
3. fully unionised teachers
4. well trained teachers
5. given the freedom to do what they are good at - educate.

I do not believe that it is flawed at all. Simply going to a private
secondary school has little to no effect on your prospects to get a job or
earn more money. Employers generally take into account the third level
qualification and results from the interview itself, not whether the
applicant went to a private school.

I recall the leaflet listing the annual intake of trainees to the Big 6 firm that clearly demonstrated the clear bias of certain partners for past pupils of 'rock or 'nure or 'knock etc. Private schooling opens doors that wouldn't otherwise be open.

Absolutely. And are you telling me that with all the luxury items that rich
people spend their money on, they do not pay the lion's share of VAT or
VRT. A neighbour of mine drives a nice Mercedes CLS, where his VAT and VRT
bill came to about €40,000 (which is more than the average family car) and
his road tax is over €1000. Rich people are often business owners, and are
most likely to be investing larger sums of money, which means that they pay
most of the corporate taxes and CGT. How many poor or even middle class
people do you think invest money or run large businesses? To suggest that
poor and middle class people pay anywhere near as much total tax as rich
people would also have to suppose that the income gap is nowhere near as
high as it is said to be.
Rich people and the companies they run pay the bulk of all taxes, it's as
simple as that.

Perhaps you haven't heard that one or two rich people have been known to move their money off-shore, or invest in Nasdaq or FTSE or DJ companies that don't generate tax here. To use your language, 'poor or even middle class' people spend what they earn, generating Customs and excise levies and VAT income and retail employment and trades employment. They don't have the luxury of moving their money off-shore. Let's not base our economic analysis on 'simple as that' dictums with no backup.

Pavlovian response my backside. There is endless proof that competition in
a non-interfered environment results in huge benefits to both the producers
and consumers of goods and services, but it seems to be socialist and Labour policy to simply ignore basic economics. It is your kind of response, i.e. that only government can solve certain problems, that is pavlovian and totally baseless.

Because you have not shown any evidence where your 'competition' model has improved educational outcomes anywhere in the world.

I have no problem implementing things that worked for Finland, but high
pay, training and unionization are not the factors, as these are also in
place in Ireland. What I have a problem with is government forcing a
monopoly on the public and not giving the public a choice.

So you're going to pick and choose the factors that suit your own ideology, rather than looking at the evidence of what actually works elsewhere - good luck with that. I've never proposed a 'government forcing a monopoly'. People are welcome to pay whatever they like for whatever education they choose, once they pay the full economic cost of that education.

Why are you so opposed to introducing competition that works perfectly well
in all other aspects of non-interfered economic life? What would the
downside be to allowing people to choose whether they send their children
to a state run school or privately run school through a voucher system?

Because what works well in business doesn't generally work well in public services. Public service is not a business. The goal of public service is not to make profit. The goal is to provide a public service. When you have different goals, then different operational approaches don't generally transfer well.

 

[Purple]

Ah the stereotypical smoking and drinking welfare recipient - don't forget to have a dig about spending on Sky and flat-screen TVs while you're up there on the high moral ground.

demoivre made no such analogy and your inference that he did is disgraceful.

I hate posts like this, because they will perpetuate a cop-out on poor quality education for the masses. They create a scenario where decent education is only expected if you pay out €6k a year (or €26k a year, when the Minister gets round to charging the full economic cost). We need to create a situation where ALL kids get the best possible start in life, as occurs in Finland.

You hate posts like that because they highlight the flaws in your bankrupt ideology. There is a disconnect between the facts on the ground and the view from upper-middle class socialist leafy suburbia. Middleclass guilt about the poor can turn people pink but it doesn’t change the facts.

Five factors

1. Very, very few private schools
2. well paid teachers
3. fully unionised teachers
4. well trained teachers
5. given the freedom to do what they are good at - educate.

How’s that different from here?

I recall the leaflet listing the annual intake of trainees to the Big 6 firm that clearly demonstrated the clear bias of certain partners for past pupils of 'rock or 'nure or 'knock etc. Private schooling opens doors that wouldn't otherwise be open.

Link please, otherwise it’s just hear-say. If one of the big 6 firms was employing people based on where they went to school rather than how good they were at their job, or how smart/qualified they were, then they wouldn’t be one of the big 6 for long, would they? That’s competition for ya.
By the way, how come you have trouble spelling the full names of the three schools you remember seeing on that leaflet?

Perhaps you haven't heard that one or two rich people have been known to move their money off-shore, or invest in Nasdaq or FTSE or DJ companies that don't generate tax here. To use your language, 'poor or even middle class' people spend what they earn, generating Customs and excise levies and VAT income and retail employment and trades employment. They don't have the luxury of moving their money off-shore. Let's not base our economic analysis on 'simple as that' dictums with no backup.

That’s right, there’s 4’000’000 people here so what 2 people (or even a few dozen people) do with their money has a major bearing on discussions about taxation.

So you're going to pick and choose the factors that suit your own ideology, rather than looking at the evidence of what actually works elsewhere - good luck with that

I’ve always admired your appreciation of irony.

Because what works well in business doesn't generally work well in public services. Public service is not a business. The goal of public service is not to make profit. The goal is to provide a public service. When you have different goals, then different operational approaches don't generally transfer well.

I agree and in a world of limitless resources value for money and measurement matrix and competition wouldn’t matter but we don’t live there.

 

[DerKaiser]

That’s right, there’s 4’000’000 people here so what 2 people (or even a few dozen people) do with their money has a major bearing on discussions about taxation.

Well you know where that one is coming from, If only the people richer than me gave all their money to those poorer than me I'd straight away have less people to both envy and pity and feel better about my own life.

 

[thedaras]

DerKaiser, great post..and purple and beefers and firefly..
I have only one thing to add,
When my kids complain about studying,I tell them its all about choices in life.

On a four hour flight, the captain is paid the most,then the cabin crew etc etc,however they both spend the same amount of time in the air.

The Captain has the most responsibiltiy and therefore paid more than the air stewards,the air stewards are paid more than those who clean the plane..yet they may all spend the same amount of time doing their jobs..so kids during your working day what do you want to do. ,your choice..same hours..
But at least give yourself the choice.

 

[Firefly]

...

 

[Firefly]

Ah the stereotypical smoking and drinking welfare recipient - don't forget to have a dig about spending on Sky and flat-screen TVs while you're up there on the high moral ground.

I think that's a bit unfair. Demoivre was showing how the consumption of 2 very popular luxury items could otherwise be spent on providing private education for a child. As I've said before, getting the best education (and I've no doubt the "perceived" best education in a lot of cases) for your child is not every parent's priority. However, the fees for private education are well within the reach of many people if they allocated their income differently. If you really, really wanted to send you child to a private school then I think for many it would be possible. Unemplopyment and poverty does not have to be permanent. I accept that those physically/mentally impaired are at a disadvantage, but for most determination and hard work should be enough. In addition, most children who go to private schools do so at secondary school so the parent has in effect 12 years to get the fees together. I'm not sure of the rates in Dublin but in Cork I believe they are approx 3,500 per year which is under 20k in total.

I hate posts like this, because they will perpetuate a cop-out on poor quality education for the masses. They create a scenario where decent education is only expected if you pay out €6k a year

I'm not being smart but I genuinely do not understand this point. Are you saying that the quality of education in public education is lower due to the existance of private schools? If so, in what way?

(or €26k a year, when the Minister gets round to charging the full economic cost). We need to create a situation where ALL kids get the best possible start in life, as occurs in Finland.

The full economic cost should not include the cost that would otherwise be bourne by the state if those children went to a public school. For this to be transparent and fair the Dept should produce an average cost of educating a child in the public school system. This amount should be refunded to parents who send their children to a private school where the full cost arises. Would you agree with this?

I recall the leaflet listing the annual intake of trainees to the Big 6 firm that clearly demonstrated the clear bias of certain partners for past pupils of 'rock or 'nure or 'knock etc. Private schooling opens doors that wouldn't otherwise be open.

I have no doubt that leaflets like this have existed. However, this is not confined to the upper/elite class. Discrimination in the work place occurs at many places of employment in this country. I am willing to bet that there are plenty people in the public sector who have gotten jobs because of someone they now (I know one person myself personally and it's a family member). Plenty people get jobs in the private sector too based on who you know. I myself have been personally approached by a private company recently offering me a position with their firm without any formal interview at all. This was due to previous engagements I had worked along side them with. By the way, I'm not saying any of this is fair, legal, just or otherwise, I'm just pointing out that, sadly, who you know rather than what you know is still alive and well in this country and it's not just present in the Big 6..

Perhaps you haven't heard that one or two rich people have been known to move their money off-shore, or invest in Nasdaq or FTSE or DJ companies that don't generate tax here. To use your language, 'poor or even middle class' people spend what they earn, generating Customs and excise levies and VAT income and retail employment and trades employment. They don't have the luxury of moving their money off-shore. Let's not base our economic analysis on 'simple as that' dictums with no backup.

Perhaps you could point to a specific illegal act here? The free movement of people and money is central to international trade. Indeed, there is plenty money flowing through our country also...even if on a percentage basis it does not produce much taxation, the amounts themselves are significant and would be more so if they did not pass through here. Indeed, why should a tax compliant person be obliged to pay more tax here than move it abroad? If you won 40m in the lotto tomorrow would you not seek taxation advice? I know I would.

Because you have not shown any evidence where your 'competition' model has improved educational outcomes anywhere in the world.

Anecdotally I know, but I personally know a teacher who teaches in a SCD public school surrounded by private schools. I met with him recently and he in no uncertain terms told me that they work like crazy to be better than the private schools so that they will attract children from the area. The school in question has a superb reputation and record. The children in this area are blessed as a result. I concede this is only one example but in almost everywhere it is introduced, competition results in better services and lower costs to consumers. Perhaps if you are against competition you would be so kind as to outline why you would think it would be such a bad idea?

 

[beffers]

I do not believe that it is flawed at all. Simply going to a private secondary school has little to no effect on your prospects to get a job or earn more money. Employers generally take into account the third level qualification and results from the interview itself, not whether the applicant went to a private school.

Maybe so. But how do kids get the points to get into college to get those third level qualifications in the first place? By doing well in secondary school. If you aren't the best studier in the world, or you have a learning disability or you are just an unmotivated dosser, the smaller class sizes in private schools mean that kids often get more individual help and attention that bears results come exam time. There were roughly 22 kids per class in my private school. Specialty subjects had about 10 pupils.

My sister had dyslexia, but she got a lot of great help from teachers at a time when dyslexia was virtually unheard of. She never fell behind, or was dismissed as being a bit thick in ways that may have happened if there were 40 kids in her class. She went on to get 5 A's and 2 B's in her Leaving Cert, was accepted for her first choice on her CAO application & went on to have a very successful career. Would that have happened if she went to the local national school where one hard working, well intentioned but ultimately over whelmed person is trying to control and teach and motivate 40 kids? Maybe so. But the odds of her falling thru the cracks of the educational system (as so many other people do) were far greater if she did not have the secondary education that she did.

I hate posts like this, because they will perpetuate a cop-out on poor quality education for the masses. They create a scenario where decent education is only expected if you pay out €6k a year (or €26k a year, when the Minister gets round to charging the full economic cost). We need to create a situation where ALL kids get the best possible start in life, as occurs in Finland.

I am not saying that our educational system is perfect. Far from it. It needs major changes and a lot of money pumped into it to give each and every kid in this country a shot at a decent education. But in the mean time, what are people supposed to do who have the ability and the will to bring about change and improvements in their situations at a given moment in time? Just sit on their hands and do nothing while waiting for the Upopia Fairy to wave her magic wand and transport us all to a Finlandian educational paradise?

I have no doubt that leaflets like this have existed. However, this is not confined to the upper/elite class. Discrimination in the work place occurs at many places of employment in this country. I am willing to bet that there are plenty people in the public sector who have gotten jobs because of someone they now (I know one person myself personally and it's a family member). Plenty people get jobs in the private sector too based on who you know. I myself have been personally approached by a private company recently offering me a position with their firm without any formal interview at all. This was due to previous engagements I had worked along side them with. By the way, I'm not saying any of this is fair, legal, just or otherwise, I'm just pointing out that, sadly, who you know rather than what you know is still alive and well in this country and it's not just present in the Big 6..

Yep. My father worked for Aer Lingus. My sibings and I all got summer jobs at Dublin Airport without even having to show up for an interview. They were low paid menial jobs, but jobs none the less & we were bloody grateful for them at the time. Our being our fathers kids was enough for the hiring department. I am not saying that to brag. Its just how things were then. Jobs for the boys is not something that elitest Dublin 4 firms engage in.

 

[Firefly]

Yep. My father worked for Aer Lingus. My sibings and I all got summer jobs at Dublin Airport without even having to show up for an interview. They were low paid menial jobs, but jobs none the less & we were bloody grateful for them at the time. Our being our fathers kids was enough for the hiring department. I am not saying that to brag. Its just how things were then. Jobs for the boys is not something that elitest Dublin 4 firms engage in.

Reminds me of a part time Xmas job I got with the post office once (My mother's friend was a posty). No interview, nothing...just turn up for "induction" which consisted of shadowing a crazy man being chased by crazy dogs (not sure who caused the other to be crazy). Like you I was delighted with the week's work at the time. It's all around and alive and kicking. Lot's of larger institutions no doubt have fancy policies and procedures in place for the masses, but from the top to the bottom it happens.

 

[Firefly]

Maybe so. But how do kids get the points to get into college to get those third level qualifications in the first place? By doing well in secondary school. If you aren't the best studier in the world, or you have a learning disability or you are just an unmotivated dosser, the smaller class sizes in private schools mean that kids often get more individual help and attention that bears results come exam time. There were roughly 22 kids per class in my private school. Specialty subjects had about 10 pupils.

My sister had dyslexia, but she got a lot of great help from teachers at a time when dyslexia was virtually unheard of. She never fell behind, or was dismissed as being a bit thick in ways that may have happened if there were 40 kids in her class. She went on to get 5 A's and 2 B's in her Leaving Cert, was accepted for her first choice on her CAO application & went on to have a very successful career. Would that have happened if she went to the local national school where one hard working, well intentioned but ultimately over whelmed person is trying to control and teach and motivate 40 kids? Maybe so. But the odds of her falling thru the cracks of the educational system (as so many other people do) were far greater if she did not have the secondary education that she did.

Hi Beffers,

I think that you are arguing a different point (Chris, feel free to correct me here). I think you are arguing that private schools are by and large better than public schools for the reasons you have highlighted above. In particular, you have a better chance of getting those LC points. I would tend to agree....afterall, apart from the vanity brigade, why would anyone pay 3-4k per year for something when they can get something of the same or better quality for free?

Chris on the other hand is saying that if 2 candidates present themselves to an employer with the same qualifications then it shouldn't make a difference whether they went to a public or private school. I would agree with this. Some employers might be swayed with the fancy school or went there themselves, whereas some others might be impressed with the "tougher" route the public school applicant took.

 

[Complainer]

I think that you are arguing a different point (Chris, feel free to correct me here). I think you are arguing that private schools are by and large better than private schools

Typo?

 

[Firefly]

Typo?

Fixed that now...hot whiskey season and all that

 

[Chris]

Five factors

1. Very, very few private schools
2. well paid teachers
3. fully unionised teachers
4. well trained teachers
5. given the freedom to do what they are good at - educate.

But yet you tell me here I got the first one wrong:

Seeing as you've got your very first point wrong (private schools not restricted), I don't really have the time or inclination to help you to develop an understanding of the facts. So let's save each other a bit of time. I'm not an education expert. You're not an education expert. We're not going to solve the problems of Ireland's education system with a few posts on a bulletin board.

The low number of private schools in Sweden is not the result of some direct government policy to restrict its numbers.

I recall the leaflet listing the annual intake of trainees to the Big 6 firm that clearly demonstrated the clear bias of certain partners for past pupils of 'rock or 'nure or 'knock etc. Private schooling opens doors that wouldn't otherwise be open.

A leaflet? Are you seriously arguing based on what you saw on a leaflet?

Perhaps you haven't heard that one or two rich people have been known to move their money off-shore, or invest in Nasdaq or FTSE or DJ companies that don't generate tax here. To use your language, 'poor or even middle class' people spend what they earn, generating Customs and excise levies and VAT income and retail employment and trades employment. They don't have the luxury of moving their money off-shore. Let's not base our economic analysis on 'simple as that' dictums with no backup.

Even when rich people move their money off-shore for investment purposes they have to declare gains in this country, so they still pay CGT or DIRT or income tax. And imagine if people throughout the world didn't invest their money in other countries, where would Ireland be without all the foreign direct investment?

Because you have not shown any evidence where your 'competition' model has improved educational outcomes anywhere in the world.

Sweden and Netherlands

So you're going to pick and choose the factors that suit your own ideology, rather than looking at the evidence of what actually works elsewhere - good luck with that. I've never proposed a 'government forcing a monopoly'. People are welcome to pay whatever they like for whatever education they choose, once they pay the full economic cost of that education.

But you want parent's of children that do not use the public system to also fund it. That is forcing a monopoly down the throat of every parent and not allowing competition for children of parent's that cannot afford current private schools. The Swedish system allows for a private school to be set up and accept the school vouchers with no additional payment. That is competition, and if the public system is so great, then there should be no fear of competition.

Because what works well in business doesn't generally work well in public services. Public service is not a business. The goal of public service is not to make profit. The goal is to provide a public service. When you have different goals, then different operational approaches don't generally transfer well.

Yes, only through profit and loss calculation can it be determined whether scarce resources are utilized efficiently. And that is why wastage is endemic in public services. That is why every form of socialism has failed. That is why we should have less government mandated services and not more.
As I already mentioned, if the public system is so good, then why not give a voucher to parents and let them decide whether they want to send their child to a state run school or a privately run one?

I think that you are arguing a different point (Chris, feel free to correct me here). I think you are arguing that private schools are by and large better than public schools for the reasons you have highlighted above. In particular, you have a better chance of getting those LC points. I would tend to agree....afterall, apart from the vanity brigade, why would anyone pay 3-4k per year for something when they can get something of the same or better quality for free?

Chris on the other hand is saying that if 2 candidates present themselves to an employer with the same qualifications then it shouldn't make a difference whether they went to a public or private school. I would agree with this. Some employers might be swayed with the fancy school or went there themselves, whereas some others might be impressed with the "tougher" route the public school applicant took.

Yes, that is what I am saying. If someone has a better chance in life because of their parent's wealth then so be it. If the public system fails to help those of a poor background then you cannot blame the wealthy or the private schools for this, you can only blame the public system for this. Rich families getting richer does not make poor families poorer.

 

[Purple]

Rich families getting richer does not make poor families poorer.

But that doesn't matter to socialists; they are more interested in bringing people down than lifting people up.

 

[Firefly]

But that doesn't matter to socialists; they are more interested in bringing people down than lifting people up.

Has socialism/communism actually worked anywhere? I'm not being clib here...but is there any evidence of a country with open borders where people have naturally migrated there for a better life? I am not saying this is the only measure of success, but IMO it's pretty valid. Generally, people migrate somewhere to make their lives better. I agree it's not all roses in many capitalist economies (and when I say capitalist I am not referring to pure capitalism, but what we would associate in the West) but people still seem to want to migrate to the West. I have a problem with China in that it is supposed to be a communist state, but it is closer to capitalism than New York iteslf it seems.

 

[TarfHead]

Has socialism/communism actually worked anywhere?

The Chinese leader Zhou Enlai is reputed to have said, about the success of the French Revolution of 1789, " .. it's too soon to say".

 

[T McGibney]

The Chinese leader Zhou Enlai is reputed to have said, about the success of the French Revolution of 1789, " .. it's too soon to say".

Sorry to spoil a good story but Zhou was actually replying to a question on the effects of the student uprising in Paris in 1968.