[All Systems Go]

Originally Posted by Ultimate Newbie

I'm not sure that its convenient, i think its the point - if something doesnt benefit everyone, at least indirectly, why is it being done?

Apart from that being a completely flawed arguement,* it is also wrong. Over the past 30 years there has been a concerted effort to deconstruct the welfare state. When cuts in in the welfare state are made, who do you think benefits? Does cutting the level of unemployment benefit to fund a tax cut on the very rich benefit everyone?

*everything is for the best in the best of all possible worlds

The idea of trickle down economics is plain wrong. Unsurprisingly, it is being advocated by those who benefit the most. The intellectual justification that the increased prosperity of the rich will eventually 'trickle down' to the poorer people has been shown to be a load of nonsense. Yet it is still advocated by those who can afford to remove themselves from society which continues to decay (at a fster rate) as a direct result of their dogmatic self-justification for self-enriching policies.

Government schools and associated investment in education are beneficial to the country and its economy as a whole.

The education system maintains the staus quo. In an irrational system it is still possible to act rationally. Getting an education can help you to get a better job and may help the economy but these are very narrow aims and should not be what an education system is about. There is no attempt to develop emotionally secure, well-rounded human beings with an ability to think critically. The main purpose is to mould children into a mediocrity or to implant a mindset of 'the establishment' or at least to crush an impulse to question authority or to reject what is being taught.

The education system does not work for the benefit of the poor. Any benefits to them are purely coincidental.

However, education is quite easily done in the private sector using markets - so why should governments intervene? Because its in the best interests of all, including/especially those who cannot otherwise afford school fees.

Well, apart from answering your own question you seem to be missing the most obvious effect of going to a publich school. It reinforces the class system. The chances of you going to a secondary school and reaching the upen echelons of political power, for example a virtually zero. The whole system breeds inequality of oppertunity.

However, i was tought in a private school, but i still benefit from public education due to the thousands of teachers, engineers, doctors, scientists, lawyers, economists, plumbers, brickies, electricians and etc that were all brought up through the public education system, whom i benefit from either directly through hired service, or indirectly through their function in society and the economy.

The education system does not work for the benefit of the poor. Any benefits to them are purely coincidental.

Mass relocation of peasants to make way for luxury apartments makes a good story and invokes all the right responses. However, from what i understand london council estates to be, i was under the impression that they were slums already.

Oh yes, I do apologise perhaps 'slum' was not the right word. I was trying to convey the fact that these areas are already falling apart and that the concentration of more poor people into smaller, more concentrated areas (which is a direct result of this redevelopment) would make life for the poor worse, rather than better.

I should have said 'ghettos'.