Fox News hosts lament algebra and history text books

[Ceannairceach]

I agree, actually. My AP teacher was very, very biased towards the Republican perspective as well.

Strangely enough, mine was the opposite. Mine taught Keynesian economics but was biased toward Democrats. Only nice thing she had to say about Romney was that he "looked presidential".

Edited post. But my teacher, when I spoke to him last, was on about how Romney would "save America". So... Put that into perspective.

[Gauthier]

Oh wow.

Slavery isn't a violation of human rights?

You were the one justifying slavery in a technologically primitive society.

[Allemonde]

Wow what a bunch of idiots. Maybe they don't know that originates from the Babylonians and the Muslims.


Oh crap never mind.

[Laerod]

Oh wow.

Slavery isn't a violation of human rights?

It's more the vile and disgusting notion that slavery was necessary that amazes me.

[Gauthier]

Wow what a bunch of idiots. Maybe they don't know that originates from the Babylonians and the Muslims.


Oh crap never mind.

That would mean every single school, public and private is in reality a madrassa. No wonder they push for home schooling.

[Wamitoria]

I actually draw problems with economics. They only seem to teach Keynsian economics at high school level.

Mine taught a mix of Keynesian and Monetarist economics.

[Ceannairceach]

But really guys, Fox News gets fussy because schools teach facts? Are we really that surprised?

[Gauthier]

But really guys, Fox News gets fussy because schools teach facts? Are we really that surprised?

Not really. But it does add some perspective on why Republicans are so determined to destroy public education.

[Ralkovia]

Not really. Slavery is a cost effective way of labor. Machines are more effective. Hence why slavery was prominent part of the World for millenia.

At the time of the Enlightenment, Europe didn't need slavery anymore. Before hand it had kept slaves as "serfs."

Slavery is actually very inefficient as to costs. It costs far more to satisfactorily keep a person alive than it does to pay them minimum page.

No it's actually not.
Slavery was dictated by market forces, meaning slavery was cost effective. I wouldn't keep buying slaves if I could make more money by not buying slaves. Does that make sense?

[Duvniask]

But really guys, Fox News gets fussy because schools teach facts? Are we really that surprised?

Once upon a time, Fox News made a news story about Obama not wearing a tie. So no. It should not be suprising in the least bit.

[Laerod]

Slavery is actually very inefficient as to costs. It costs far more to satisfactorily keep a person alive than it does to pay them minimum page.

No it's actually not.
Slavery was dictated by market forces, meaning slavery was cost effective. I wouldn't keep buying slaves if I could make more money by not buying slaves. Does that make sense?

No, because it assumes rational, far-sighted economic actors.

[Individuality-ness]

BURN ALL THE BOOKS!!!!

No. Commies burn flags, because they hate their nations. Therefore burning things is communist. Therefore take all the math books, give them to the Book Publishing industry, and get all the pages cleaned of ink before reprinting them as Bibles and copies of Atlas Shrugged. It's the only way, and it's helping the Job Creators^TM and Wealth Creators^TM to create jobs and wealth!

You're calling for recycling materials! LIBERAL!

[Marcurix]

George Bush went in there because he heard there were weapons of mass destruction and they were never found

Funny, I thought this actually happened. Who knew it was liberal bias?

[Ralkovia]

No it's actually not.
Slavery was dictated by market forces, meaning slavery was cost effective. I wouldn't keep buying slaves if I could make more money by not buying slaves. Does that make sense?

No, because it assumes rational, far-sighted economic actors.

Those that do not flow with the market, end up getting washed away. Once it stopped being cost effective, slavery would have ended. The same way we went from record players to MPGs.

[Individuality-ness]

But really guys, Fox News gets fussy because schools teach facts? Are we really that surprised?

Once upon a time, Fox News made a news story about Obama not wearing a tie. So no. It should not be suprising in the least bit.

I remember they made a Freudian slip, when they said that they got "Obama bin Laden" instead of Osama.

[Ceannairceach]

Slavery is actually very inefficient as to costs. It costs far more to satisfactorily keep a person alive than it does to pay them minimum page.

No it's actually not.
Slavery was dictated by market forces, meaning slavery was cost effective. I wouldn't keep buying slaves if I could make more money by not buying slaves. Does that make sense?

It does. But invariably the free labor system is more cost effective than slavery, since slaves are more expensive to maintain and can rarely be trusted with higher level jobs, meaning they never gain value. Thus, you should never buy slaves.

Also, free labor is dictated by market forces as well.

[Gauthier]

Once upon a time, Fox News made a news story about Obama not wearing a tie. So no. It should not be suprising in the least bit.

I remember they made a Freudian slip, when they said that they got "Obama bin Laden" instead of Osama.

It's FOX. Freudian slips are *untintentional*.

[Ceannairceach]

No, because it assumes rational, far-sighted economic actors.

Those that do not flow with the market, end up getting washed away. Once it stopped being cost effective, slavery would have ended. The same way we went from record players to MPGs.

Except that it wasn't cost effective during the Civil War Era, but was continuing anyway.

[Laerod]

No, because it assumes rational, far-sighted economic actors.

Those that do not flow with the market, end up getting washed away. Once it stopped being cost effective, slavery would have ended. The same way we went from record players to MPGs.

You need to reread what was posted. "Not cost effective" and "inefficient" aren't the same thing, so presenting an argument as to why something was cost effective enough to survive doesn't mean that it's the best economic choice.

[Individuality-ness]

I remember they made a Freudian slip, when they said that they got "Obama bin Laden" instead of Osama.

It's FOX. Freudian slips are *untintentional*.

Good point.

[Ralkovia]

No it's actually not.
Slavery was dictated by market forces, meaning slavery was cost effective. I wouldn't keep buying slaves if I could make more money by not buying slaves. Does that make sense?

It does. But invariably the free labor system is more cost effective than slavery, since slaves are more expensive to maintain and can rarely be trusted with higher level jobs, meaning they never gain value. Thus, you should never buy slaves.

Also, free labor is dictated by market forces as well.

Of course. Free labor is more cost effective than slavery in certain jobs other than the primitive and mindless work that was entitled in picking and harvesting crops. There is a reason why slavery is still used in undeveloped parts of the World for farming.

Slavery exists and has existed because slavery is profitable and cost effective.

[Ceannairceach]

It does. But invariably the free labor system is more cost effective than slavery, since slaves are more expensive to maintain and can rarely be trusted with higher level jobs, meaning they never gain value. Thus, you should never buy slaves.

Also, free labor is dictated by market forces as well.

Of course. Free labor is more cost effective than slavery in certain jobs other than the primitive and mindless work that was entitled in picking and harvesting crops. There is a reason why slavery is still used in undeveloped parts of the World for farming.

Slavery exists and has existed because slavery is profitable and cost effective.

If minimum wage was not employed, free labor would STILL be more cost effective than slavery in menial work.

[Ralkovia]

Those that do not flow with the market, end up getting washed away. Once it stopped being cost effective, slavery would have ended. The same way we went from record players to MPGs.

You need to reread what was posted. "Not cost effective" and "inefficient" aren't the same thing, so presenting an argument as to why something was cost effective enough to survive doesn't mean that it's the best economic choice.

Cost effective still means it worked and if it means that it "Got the job done" than slavery has just been economically justified.

[Laerod]

It does. But invariably the free labor system is more cost effective than slavery, since slaves are more expensive to maintain and can rarely be trusted with higher level jobs, meaning they never gain value. Thus, you should never buy slaves.

Also, free labor is dictated by market forces as well.

Of course. Free labor is more cost effective than slavery in certain jobs other than the primitive and mindless work that was entitled in picking and harvesting crops. There is a reason why slavery is still used in undeveloped parts of the World for farming.

Slavery exists and has existed because slavery is profitable and cost effective.

Not really what people are objecting to. People are objecting to your disgusting claim that it's "necessary".

[Laerod]

You need to reread what was posted. "Not cost effective" and "inefficient" aren't the same thing, so presenting an argument as to why something was cost effective enough to survive doesn't mean that it's the best economic choice.

Cost effective still means it worked and if it means that it "Got the job done" than slavery has just been economically justified.

So you admit that you made a non-sequitur?