[QUOTE=UltraSamurai;42117084]The current system is already a loan system where you pay for the education after you have completed your degree and start working. Privatisation would make the system much more efficient.[/QUOTE]
You don't pay your education fee's immediately, over time you pay it off. Privatising the whole Education sector would be outrageous, families who struggle to make ends meet would collapse, hell my parents send me and my Brother to a private school and we are going good but if we went to public schools we'd have a lot more money
[QUOTE=UltraSamurai;42117084]The current system is already a loan system where you pay for the education after you have completed your degree and start working. Privatisation would make the system much more efficient.[/QUOTE]
The current system (for tertiary education at least) is a loan system which is provided for by the government. If complete privatisation of education is to happen, there would be no government-issued loans to hand out, and I reiterate in saying that loans can be hard to get if you don't have a good credit rating. A bank is not going to give away money expecting a return once a student has completed his or her degree, not even the government expects that return. And loans are about receiving a greater return in the future (for the creditor), it would be too risky for banks to even consider such loans.
are you talking about tertiary education?
[QUOTE=UltraSamurai;42117084]The current system is already a loan system where you pay for the education after you have completed your degree and start working. Privatisation would make the system much more efficient.[/QUOTE]
The original comment was, "education should be [I]completely[/I] privatised," which seems to imply, y'know, all levels of education. Also tertiary education is only semi-privatised. The government still pays a large percentage of your fees for a lot of courses now. My course has a large government subsidy on it for example - without it I think my HECS (or HELP - whatever it's called now) fees would be almost double (if not more) what it will be. Tertiary education isn't entirely privatised at the moment and I'm not sure it should be considering people in places like the states talk about being in debt for a ridiculous period of time until they can pay off their whole student loan.
[QUOTE=fruxodaily;42117098]You don't pay your education fee's immediately, over time you pay it off. Privatising the whole Education sector would be outrageous, families who struggle to make ends meet would collapse, hell my parents send me and my Brother to a private school and we are going good but if we went to public schools we'd have a lot more money[/QUOTE]
If all schools were privatised school fees would be lower as they would be competing for students.
but there are no fees in a public school
[QUOTE=UltraSamurai;42117138]If all schools were privatised school fees would be lower as they would be competing for students.[/QUOTE]
Except education almost holds a position of a natural monopoly (which ironically are more efficient than if that market had competitors), due to the extremely high barriers of entry (land and facilities to use, attaining qualified teachers, and I imagine some kind of license required to provide education services etc). You are not guaranteed that all areas would have enough schools to provide for sufficient competition. I suppose though that the government could interfere with monopoly pricing regulation (P = MC or P = AC as a compromise), but that goes against the complete privatisation of education in the first place.
Education is one of the very few things that should not be left to the private sector.
[QUOTE=abcpea;42117144]but there are no fees in a public school[/QUOTE]
Yes there are. There's a standard school fee, plus taxes everyone in the country pays.
[editline]8th September 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Antdawg;42117163]Except education almost holds a position of a natural monopoly (which ironically are more efficient than if that market had competitors), due to the extremely high barriers of entry (land and facilities to use, attaining qualified teachers, and I imagine some kind of license required to provide education services etc). You are not guaranteed that all areas would have enough schools to provide for sufficient competition. I suppose though that the government could interfere with monopoly pricing regulation, but that goes against the complete privatisation of education in the first place.
Education is one of the very few things that should not be left to the private sector.[/QUOTE]
The government already has a monopoly on education, and you don't complain.
[QUOTE=UltraSamurai;42117175]The government already has a monopoly on education, and you don't complain.[/QUOTE]
Exactly, there should be a monopoly on education. It is one of the few cases (like infrastructure) where a monopoly is more efficient.
[QUOTE=UltraSamurai;42117175]The government already has a monopoly on education, and you don't complain.[/QUOTE]
Because education is one of the key factors that keeps us from being above crap flinging monkeys, along with electricity, healthcare and sanitation.
I really hope the budget cuts dont affect health care jobs, cause if they do my parents will proberly loose their jobs again.
[QUOTE=Antdawg;42117190]Exactly, there should be a monopoly on education. It is one of the few cases (like infrastructure) where a monopoly is more efficient.[/QUOTE]
Are you really trying to say privatisation wouldn't vastly improve our infrastructure right now?
[QUOTE=UltraSamurai;42117243]Are you really trying to say privatisation wouldn't vastly improve our infrastructure right now?[/QUOTE]
You can't make such vast statements. What type of infrastructure?
Privitaisation of the electricity sector in Victoria has proven to be a disaster.
[QUOTE=1Eevee1;42117214]Because education is one of the key factors that keeps us from being above crap flinging monkeys, along with electricity, healthcare and sanitation.[/QUOTE]
Yeah everyone in the third world is a crap flinging monkey...
[QUOTE=UltraSamurai;42117259]Yeah everyone in the third world is a crap flinging monkey...[/QUOTE]
One huge factor contributing to certain third world countries is the difficult access to education. So while third world countries don't consist of crap flinging monkeys, they probably wouldn't be third world countries at all with proper education systems.
[QUOTE=UltraSamurai;42116023]Centrelink should be abolished.[/QUOTE]
there is seriously something fundamentally wrong with you
you realise centrelink exists solely to help people who aren't fully able to help themselves? anyone capable of finding a job or supporting themselves on their own doesn't get help from centrelink. believe me i've tried before.
it's for people who are physically or mentally or socially handicapped. people who are not easily employable. or alternatively people unable to work enough hours due to other commitments like education. give me one good reason why we shouldn't HELP THESE PEOPLE find JOBS or GIVE THEM FINANCIAL AID TO LIVE.
you are so misinformed and deluded it's hard to even believe.
[QUOTE=UltraSamurai;42117243]Are you really trying to say privatisation wouldn't vastly improve our infrastructure right now?[/QUOTE]
That's not guaranteed. For one, private monopolies typically do not have incentives to innovate if it does not bring a commercial benefit. For example with the internet infrastructure, if the whole system was owned by a private monopoly they may not have an incentive to upgrade from copper to fibre, especially if the monopoly was already regulated to ensure socially optimal pricing. And going on with natural monopolies, it would be inefficient if multiple firms were in competition over the internet infrastructure. Just imagine a country where there are say three or four different train networks each with stations in every town and city. It's a complete waste of resources when you only need one train network to do the same thing.
[QUOTE=Rusty100;42117321]there is seriously something fundamentally wrong with you
you realise centrelink exists solely to help people who aren't fully able to help themselves? anyone capable of finding a job or supporting themselves on their own doesn't get help from centrelink. believe me i've tried before.
it's for people who are physically or mentally or socially handicapped. people who are not easily employable. or alternatively people unable to work enough hours due to other commitments like education. give me one good reason why we shouldn't HELP THESE PEOPLE find JOBS or GIVE THEM FINANCIAL AID TO LIVE.
you are so misinformed and deluded it's hard to even believe.[/QUOTE]
The guy's obviously a troll (or... a complete monster) - can't you ban him for that?
[QUOTE=UltraSamurai;42117243]Are you really trying to say privatisation wouldn't vastly improve our infrastructure right now?[/QUOTE]
Are you going to get to DogGunn's post or ignore it because it disagrees with you:
[QUOTE=DogGunn;42117247]You can't make such vast statements. What type of infrastructure?
Privitaisation of the electricity sector in Victoria has proven to be a disaster.[/QUOTE]
I'd like to hear something stupid as a reply to his post, so I went straight to the source. Thanks.
[QUOTE=Clovis;42117352]i'm really baffled about how many labor supporters there actually are lmfao
bye bye asylum seekers[/QUOTE]
What do you expect, progressive parties are more popular with younger peoples, and this is obviously a forum for young people.
And what is wrong with asylum seekers? (but just saying, Labor's asylum seeker policy is just as terrible as the Coalition's policy to me).
[QUOTE=Clovis;42117396]Perhaps the amount of support they get for arriving on a boat surpasses many australian citizens with jobs?[/QUOTE]
Oh, so all asylum seekers should be told to get lost instead of just decreasing the amount of assistance they get from the government?
[QUOTE=DogGunn;42117247]You can't make such vast statements. What type of infrastructure?
Privitaisation of the electricity sector in Victoria has proven to be a disaster.[/QUOTE]
The government creates monopolies and then hands them over to private enterprise, when there is no competition there is no reason to perform well. The government is purely at fault for not having any foresight.
Holy shit UltraSamurai are you Tony Abbott v2.0?
And no not all of us aren't labor supporters, while I do prefer Labor over Liberal by far but they aren't my preferred party (I voted Australian Sex Party).
Don't generalise people into certain political parties please, very irritating.
so is the sole reason why people are against labor is because of asylum seekers?
im just baffled you guys had such a stable country with one of the best economy in the world along with several polls stating they're the best cities to live in then voted away the government responsible for it
i would die for that kind of party
im so confused lol
[QUOTE=Clovis;42117420]The only reason they are coming here is because of the amount of support they get, there are many other countries in the world that they can fuck off to[/QUOTE]
So what? We have the money, we have the resources, we can take twenty or thirty thousand asylum seekers. If we didn't put them in detention it would be much cheaper. If we didn't make them wait overseas for so long they wouldn't be drowning.
[QUOTE=lolwutdude;42117457]so is the sole reason why people are against labor is because of asylum seekers?
im just baffled you guys had such a stable country with one of the best economy in the world along with several polls stating they're the best cities to live in then voted away the government responsible for it
i would die for that kind of party
im so confused lol[/QUOTE]
Strange thing is, Labor was tougher on Asylum Seekers than the Liberals were, yet somehow the general stance is that Labor was "weaker".
The Liberal policies were terrible, but at least they let them into the country.
[QUOTE=lolwutdude;42117457]voted away the government responsible for it[/QUOTE]
Except there has been enough campaign propaganda and the Howard government was good enough that the current situation is attributed by many to that government rather than the current one.
[QUOTE=gerbe1;42117461]So what? We have the money, we have the resources, we can take twenty or thirty thousand asylum seekers. If we didn't put them in detention it would be much cheaper. If we didn't make them wait overseas for so long they wouldn't be drowning.[/QUOTE]
Yeah lets just let every single person into the country without question, who cares who they are? They will all surely respect our customs, culture and laws fully!
[QUOTE=Clovis;42117447]i wonder if people will realise that the sex party will never be elected[/QUOTE]
People can say the same things about The Greens a few years back and look at the amount of support they are getting now.
[QUOTE=UltraSamurai;42117478]Yeah lets just let every single person into the country without question, who cares who they are? They will surely respect our customs, culture and laws fully![/QUOTE]
You realize your view on asylum seekers tends towards Labors policies more than Liberals?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
