oh shiet
"Se-Woong Koo wrote that "the system's dark side casts a long shadow. Dominated by tiger moms, cram schools and highly authoritarian teachers, South Korean education produces ranks of overachieving students who pay a stiff price in health and happiness. The entire program amounts to child abuse. It should be reformed and restructured without delay."B1rd wrote:
I'm really quite fond of the private cram schools in South Korea, it really shows how good the schools can be when market principles are applied as opposed to top-down planned public schools.
I don't know, it seems more of a problem with these Asian cultures rather than a problem rooted in the schools. And I wouldn't make definite conclusions about the system just from one quote, it puts pressure on the students but I wouldn't say I know for sure that it's too much, a certain amount of pressure is needed. And some Western countries are probably too lax in their standards.DaddyCoolVipper wrote:
"Se-Woong Koo wrote that "the system's dark side casts a long shadow. Dominated by tiger moms, cram schools and highly authoritarian teachers, South Korean education produces ranks of overachieving students who pay a stiff price in health and happiness. The entire program amounts to child abuse. It should be reformed and restructured without delay."
In a response to the article, educator Diane Ravitch warned against modeling an educational system in which children "exist either to glorify the family or to build the national economy". She argued furthermore that the happiness of South Korean children has been sacrificed, and likened the country's students to "cogs in a national economic machine"
A 2014 poll found that over half of South Korean teenagers have suicidal thoughts, with over 40% of respondents reporting that school pressure and future uncertainty dismayed them the most. Furthermore, suicide is currently the leading cause of death among South Korean youth."
How does the market prevent these issues? It seems like people's welfare and independence are being disregarded in order to put them at "maximum efficiency", a problem seen in many Asian cultures regarding education and work.
I don't know a lot about Nestle and Amazon, it'd take a lot of knowledge of the context to make accurate assessments of the situations and theorise about the possible free-market solutions and mechanism, right now I'm more just pointing out the superiority of a more liberal economy compared to a socialist one.DaddyCoolVipper wrote:
Tiny response since I just got back from work- I mentioned the word "utopia" since railey just made the suggestion that under a totally free market, things naturally spiral towards that state, which is true if only the most positive outcomes happen.
My reference to Nestlé and Amazon were two specific ones that I think you misunderstood. Nestlé buys up water sources wherever it can, which deprives areas of clean water piped to them. You should be able to find examples of this fairly easily. Another point I wasn't mentioning was their use of child labour in developing countries though, which without regulation is something that is pretty much encouraged in a totally free market, since it maximises profits when the company has a monopoly on the area (they can pay inhumanely low wages in third-world countries since there's no competition for wages). As for Amazon, they're known for making rather unfair deals with publishers due to their monopoly on the market, but I don't know enough of the specifics to go deeper into that.
Public transport in rural areas, like trains and buses, can indeed be a net loss- but they're necessary for society, so those services are still offered despite being unprofitable. I imagine taxpayers are okay with paying for this, since they can empathise with people who aren't as well off and don't want them to get fucked over more just for being poor, y'know?
Goddamnit Railey, don't ruin the fun. I enjoy watching our edgy Tasmanian boy discuss stuff that makes absolutely no sense what-so-ever in the real world.Railey2 wrote:
guys, my comment was satirizing B1rd's unrealistic faith in the positive forces of the free market.
Also lol at your murder rate and guns per 100 people argument:
You're once again seeing this as a one-dimensional problem.
You wouldn't even think for a second that there could be multiple factors, and that removing guns could possibly be benefitial if used in combination with other things, but maybe not on its own?
we're talking about reality here, not some closed off heavily controlled lab-experiment. Do you honestly think that there are no confounding factors that completely nullify this poor attempt of an argument?
stupid
why not try for both?B1rd wrote:
Now, this child labour thing is a common topic but there isn't much understanding of it. The Left looks at sweatshops and child labour and they think the solution is simply regulation, that these evil corporations are exploiting the poor workers and if only there were regulation everything would be fixed, and that the strongarm of the state is the solution to everything. Obviously this oversimplified way of thinking doesn't actually fix the problem, which is the poverty in that area, along with corrupt governments and things along those lines.
I seem to have failed in my mission to avoid being noticed by you.Hika wrote:
interrupts to tell aurani to eat my ass
peep 👀Hika wrote:
interrupts to tell aurani to eat my ass
XdB1rd wrote:
B1rd: 1
Britbongs and Europoors: zero