aequalsa
-
Posts
2171 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
24
Posts posted by aequalsa
-
-
So yeah goldbugs, you are envisioning a world where a Toyota Camry goes for about $125,000 when the price of the thing has gone from $22k to $26k in the LAST ten years. Good luck with that.
I have followed your posts on economics here for awhile and generally appreciate them. I agree that the value of gold has blown up beyond sensibility but wander if you are not discounting the effects of inflation a bit much. Just anecdotal of course, but value meals at fast food restaurants have gone from $2 to $6 in the last 20 years(300%). New low end cars have gone from $999 to $9,999 in 30 years. I know they've been telling me with the cpi that we have 2% or 3% inflation a year, but any who's lived that long knows that it's a lie. Any product that hasn't changed significantly seems closer to 15%/year when you look at decade long changes. Obviously, anything with massive technological improvement(like PCs)counters that with prices so including those sorts of items is only going to contribute to the facade.
In a free market without this wholesale currency manipulation, short of massive gold finds, technological advance should cause fairly consistent deflation over time. So any item remaining stagnant even, is to me a sign of wealth erosion....or more accurately, transfer. So essentially, my view now is that there is significant inflation but it is largely obfuscated by erroneous measuring techniques, long time delays, and political mouth pieces.
So with that in mind, my question is, do you think it's possible that there is direct causation between increasing the money supply and stealing everyone's wealth even if it is not immediately apparent? Also, with regard to gold specifically, do you think that the recent run up could just be a catching up period from the previous 20 years where gold remained almost totally stagnant, which would be inflation related, or do you believe that it is almost totally caused by irrational fears driven by right wing talk show hosts?
-
. Rather, it is an assumption that the unprecedented monetary expansion over the last 3-4 years (equivalent to nearly 70 years worth of expansion before that) will inevitably percolate through the economy over a series of years, gradually driving prices across all goods and services ever higher.
Do you mean in percentages or raw numbers? Also, could you source that for me? Just seems a bit higher than what I have seen.
-
I strongly disagree. While Dewey's alterations allowed more 'freedom', this is an illusion. Examining Dewey's work, Dewey wants the teacher to be less overbearing, but that is only so students can work in groups. Dewey advocates this as a way to enforce social structures and teach individuals to submit to the ideas of their peers. Dewey's ideas were a means of teaching collectivism. In doing so, Dewey says outright that the content is secondary this "social" learning. Dewey's ideas were intended to accomplish the same thing as the German approach, just redirected to submit to society rather than a dictator. In both cases, learning is subordinated to teaching people to be submissive.
Which is worse? I argue Dewey. The dictator can be dethroned, but subordinating to society is much more difficult to correct.
I don't know that "dethroning a a dictator" is such a simple thing. They sat all over Europe for over a thousand years and continue to in many parts of the world, often times, with near universal love and fear.
At any rate, to be clear, I don't mean to defend the man. Just to point out that he had a pretty massive and divergent body of work in a number of fields and it's very prone to cherry picking for good and bad. So if someone were to be selective they might come away with a useful principle or two. At least in a more free situation, a child has a fighting chance to become something other than an automaton. In the Prussian model, precious few come out intellectually alive.
-
In fact, this German system was so successful and created such a degree of complacency in society, it was a major factor facilitating the committing of atrocities in the early 20th century. (see Dewey's German Philosophy and Politics)
Thoughts on my conclusion?
The Prussian educational model is still the foundation of most public schools in the US. In some ways, Dewey offered a beneficial, though still terrible, alteration of those methods.
"Sit still at a station," "perform a function repeatedly," "move to the next station at the sound of the bell," and most importantly, "do as the supervisor commands." This is the basics of the model; To create cogs in the wheel of the industrial revolution. In a world filled with people who lack the capacity to think outside of soundbites and bromides, I'd say that they largely succeeded in their task.
Dewey's alteration of the Teacher/Supervisor-centric model, I think helped. Not...you know...a lot...but I can't say that it was worse because of his views. He wrote so bloody much that some of his ideas probably made some teachers a bit better.
His trashing of Montessori was probably his biggest crime against education.
-
Not to put too fine a point on it !
Still, many people calling themselves Objectivist think of Israel as the 51st state of the U.S. which happens to be on the other side of the earth. Perhaps you could be more articulate in your response. Their argument in outline is very simple: Israel is our ally, defending Israel helps defend us. Three billion a year to Israel, bombs to drop on its enemies and jets to do it with – it helps us, it’s the selfish thing to do.
Any weak points in that argument need to be addressed. You “have to say it” because the Ayn Rand Institute has published quite a number of articles saying just the opposite and many people seem to agree with them. The Ayn Rand Institute’s web presence, within its field, is tremendous. You can’t Google Ayn Rand anything without the Ayn Rand Institute/Center coming up in the first few items.
That's a good response, Mark2. At the outset, I would like to confess that I do not have a fully thought out response to ARI's positions regarding supporting Israel and our foreign interventions, but I do have a few thoughts that concern me which I would like to see addressed if you, or anyone has the time and interest.
The main concern that I have is that I do not see how a country can properly have "interests" outside of it's own boundaries, apart from acts of war, of course.(Which maybe you were talking about exclusively) Individuals from a country can have interests, if they, for example, decide to open a company or factory up in another country, but that seems to be a risk that they choose to take. If Exxon wants an oil field in Iran, they are choosing to build an Iranian Oil Field. As such they are subject to the rules regulations and chance of nationalization that are inherent to that state. The country they are based out of seems irrelevant and not responsible for securing their rights in another country.
Supporting Israel in the sense of taking their moral side in a war with the Arabic world is one thing, but us supporting them with 3 billion dollars a year in funds expropriated from our own citizens, to keep them as a strategic ally or whatever is another thing altogether. If we just needed real estate over there, we could probably buy several African countries outright for the price of one years worth of their support.
Further, they're not nearly big enough to be needed by the US militarily. The US alone spends nearly half of all world defense dollars which tells me that we need no allies outside of political reasons to fight any conventional war. Especially none so small. Including the 3 billion we give them, they only spend 14 billion a year on defense. What they could provide is a drop in a trillion(s) dollar bucket. So even just in a Military context I fail to see what our Billions of dollars buys us. Any thoughts?
Caveats:I'm not looking for an explanation of why we do this currently. That's easy to write off as a derivative of our altruistic ethos. I mean to understand how this is morally justifiable by a selfish, Objectivist standard. I just don't see it. Also, I'd like to keep in mind the total perspective which is that this has been going on for decades and must amount to well over $100 billion by now, leaving aside any indirect costs if we give any weight to the idea that our support of them makes us no friends of the Arabic world. Those costs could easily be in the trillions.
-
Shenanigans.
-
I disagree that you need to know the essentials of the entire philosophy before you can live by it. Understanding and living by the Objectivist virtues of rationality, productiveness, pride, independence, integrity, honesty and justice -- and understanding the values of reason (and that emotions are not a means of cognition), purpose and self-esteem is probably enough for most people.
Everyone already has a philosophy; even those with "second-rate minds" (a faulty concept, BTW) can't avoid it. Humans learn in bits and pieces; by experience; by trial and error. There's no need to memorize any tenets. Having someone, such as a teacher or a parent, who understands Objectivism can be enough. These are lessons (and learning opportunities) that come up thousands of times in a person's life. For example, most people already know that honesty is a virtue -- and they get value from that knowledge, even if they don't understand exactly why it's true.
The main thing they're missing is having someone help connect the dots between Objectivist virtues; to help them see things like the source and nature of pride, self-esteem and happiness.
I think this is a good post and would like to expand on the point a little further. This idea of a second rate mind is inaccurately dichotomous(Or maybe 'trichotomous'). Firstly, there is no meaningful distinction between "First Rate," "Second Rate," or "Third rate" minds, not minds wholly or in part. No doubt that someone can be better or worse at particular mental activities, but very few ways of testing have any predictive qualities and those that do, like IQ for example are pretty limited. These fuzzy descriptions are only going to serve to frame the debate in such a way that two or three incorrect answers are available.
The philosophy of Ayn Rand is useful because it is accurate in describing man's relationship to reality. Assuming then, that this premise is true, an endeavor, physical, mental, and psychological, is successful to the extent that it conforms to her philosophy. If the individual has a more, than usual, accurate assessment of the nature of the universe and how it works, especially in the sphere that he is working in, an accurate view of his mind and it's capacities and connection to that world, and an honest an accurate assessment of how he feels about it all, he will tend to be successful in all three of those ways. If he has less than usual, he will tend to fail more frequently.
The implication in the original post and much of the discussion is that one ought to only follow a philosophy to the extent that they are intelligent. There is no ought implied by intelligence, only an is. If someone is all around, less intelligent then they will be less able to follow the philosophy consistently. There is no implication that they shouldn't try. That's like saying, since I don't really grasp the way acceleration with regard to gravity functions I should follow a competing explanation where fairies with wings fly me to the ground faster and faster as I get closer to the earth. Rubbish. You must always do as well as you're able, and to the extent you are correct you will succeed.
-
-- for example, by paying the loan off with inflated dollars.
That's the key bit of context. Right now you can get 30year fixed rates for under 4% in some cases. Taking on 4% money in a country on the brink of having to either deflate their currency's value,raise interest rates, or more likely, both, is usually a great idea. If you have $200,000 in debt At 4% with 10% inflation for 5 years(like we had in the 70s recession), then your basically paying back half of that amount. Further, when they raise interest rates back up, t bills could be paying 14% again easy. ( http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar/New_Home_Page/datafile/histret.html )
So, say you had the $200k in a shoe box and were deciding whether to pay cash or take on the 4% money...If you spend the $200k, you own a depreciating asset that you hope goes up in value some day. Whereas, if you were to put $40k down and hold on for a couple years you could be in the situation where you own a $200k(+inflation) house, with the equivalent of $80k($160k actually) in debt after inflation takes its toll, $160k in t bills making 10% a year up and above the 4% you are paying out on the mortgage, and not waiting for the value to increase because appreciation would just be a bonus. Plus you get extra points if you have an assumable mortgage at 4% when everyone else is paying 10% because that just caused your house to increase in value regardless of natural appreciation if you want to get out of it. And that's just tbills which is about the safest paper you could buy. If you invest well in securities or start a business with the $160k than the benefit could be orders of magnitude larger, but that's a whole other can of worms.
We live in a country with a debt based currency. Whether you like it or not, that's the context and if you loose sight of that, you'll end up being a martyr who responsibly saved up his pennies so that they could redistribute your savings through inflation long before you retire. It's really this simple. If you can borrow money at 4% and earn 5% on average over time, should you? I would say absofuckinlutely.
Disclaimer: I am not a financial planner and the above information is for entertainment purposes only. Any financial losses sustained by an individual following this advice is their responsibility solely. Personal context and capacity can vary too much.
-
That's an interesting chart. Probably a better clue to finding true unemployment than anything I've seen.
-
Aristotle's theory led him to support slavery. Now, Ayn Rand's theory is built on top of Aristotle's theory. Is Ayn Rand ignoring the concusions that Aristotle have reached ?
It's been awhile since I've read him, but if I recall correctly, his argument was that without a leisure class, producing art, science, and philosophy, civilization could not advance, and a leisure class is made possible only by the existence of slaves. So it was not so much a positive as a necessary evil for the good of his reason based civilization, which, I'd also note was the only one to have existed up until that point. So in his zeitgeist, I can see how it was a reasonable, if incorrect belief, that without slavery, advanced civilization could not occur. And honestly, I'm not sure that it was incorrect. It could be the case that without the institution we'd still be in huts, but that's mostly conjecture.
I'd also note that we still have slaves to wash our clothes and dishes, for example, but the industrial and technological revolutions have allowed us to use them without blushing by removing their will and sentience. Since I'm already conjecturing, I've often wondered what he'd think about the way we use our time now that we have nearly 3 billion people on the planet that would fit his description of a leisure class.
-
But there’s also this to consider: is it not fraudulent to work for a company who performs a background check on me? Even though I don’t actually have a criminal record, am I not essentially being deceptive…because if I had actually been caught for these crimes, I might have had a criminal record?
Speaking as one who has had property vandalized and had things stolen, I can say that were I at the other end of the situation that you explained, I would be happy that you had turned your life around and were making amends, but would be disappointed to see you throw your dreams away by involving the law.
Often those things are covered by insurance, and when they are not, I take my lumps and chalk it up to human irrationality, like taxes, parking fines, and ridiculous overdraft fees. Shit happens.
Grownups, if we've matured at all, know that kids do dumb things sometimes, and should not rationally want to have them pay for our minor inconveniences by sacrificing their whole lives. My vote would be to send the anonymous letters where possible, but not go to jail or ruin your future over it. And certainly don't volunteer to give the state tens of thousands of dollars for your DUI. The harm that they would do with that money, as a general rule, will far outweigh all of your crimes put together. Their gonna steal it(and then some) from you anyways. If you're really bent up about it, you could figure out what an average DUI costs in fines and fees and donate that money to a worthy cause. ARI, KIVA, etc. to get your karmic balance back. or whatever. 2 cents, deposited.
-
A friend wrote to me:
A scientific theory must be falsifiable, must be able to predict events, and must be verifiable. However, scientific theories cannot be proved. I was not aware that Austrian economics could make predictions and was falsifiable.
What should I answer to this?
I do not know the full context of the conversation, but my first impression is that his error consists of changing the scale and making poor comparisons between incomparable objects as a result.
In other words, Austrian economics is not falsifiable in the sense that the theory of Evolution and psychoanalysis are not falsifiable. You can't take the whole theories and plop them into labs and disprove them. Individual aspects of both could be, and whole theories could be disproved(theoretically...heheh) by disproving all of their components.
Integrated thinking and philosophical induction is the only approach possible with that level of abstraction. Trying to apply empiricism as your standard of proof is extremely useful at a very concrete level but whenever it stretches past that concrete level, like evolutionary psychology for example, you end up with a bunch of "just so" stories that mainly serve to reaffirm the researchers initial premises.
-
I don't mean a rational rebuttal.. I mean any way of looking at the actual quote in a way that makes sense.
Edison's quote is the exact opposite of the self help drivvel I posted above
You might be able to make the argument that if you are inspired by what you're doing, you won't need any otherkind of motivation. In the sense that, if you love your job you would do it for free and do not need a big pay check to get up each morning. I don't think that it's particularly right, but I can understand the sentiment.
-
It seems implicit in your statements that the best goal is to find a "soul mate", a sort of "the absolute highest possible that will ever be attained." Marriage does seem to be the only proper goal of romance in the standards you mention, that "perhaps marriage material" is the standard you advocate to judge when sex is perfectly moral.
I don't mean to suggest that. I do however think that if you are approaching dating from the perspective of seeking someone of high value, it is unlikely that it would mesh well with seeking someone for a short term. If they really are someone you care for deeply, then they are also someone you would want to keep in your life indefinitely. Almost anyone you're slightly attracted to could be enjoyable for a few months so if sex is relegated to the purpose of being cheap fun for as long as it lasts, than standards don't need to be high, and are not, regardless of what kind of spin someone tries to put on it.
-
For me it is really about whether someone is selecting partners they 1) greatly value for more than just physical reasons and 2) intend to have a serious relationship with. Later as one spends more time with the person, they might discover new information that lets them know it's not going to work out. Moving on from that and finding a new partner is not a moral failing - if anything, it's a moral virtue.
I agree but do not think life circumstances would very often allow for large numbers. Even in the scenario that you indicate, I count 1-2 relationships in high school, 1-2 in college, 1-2 in gradschool, 1-2 out of school...so 4-8 relationships over the course of 10 years, that were not worth hanging onto while you learn the ropes? Sure, I'll buy that, but when someone tells me 16 ,20, 40 then I call bullshit on their having been selective. Even in the most extreme life situation, say an active duty soldier who's getting transferred every 6 months. I wouldn't blame him for being less selective, but if he was honest, I also wouldn't expect him to suggest that he was being selective.
-
I usually understand promiscuous to be sleeping around with whomever based on little more than physical appearance, lacking in judgments about character. Number of partners is not exactly relevant, what's essential here is what level of non-discrimination, in terms of level on a value hierarchy, is promiscuity?
I generally agree, but I do not see it as a dichotomy. One can be more selective or less, and its is uncommonly rare, and I would argue, unrealistic to think that someone who has 15 or 20 partners has been reasonably selective.
-
No, I would say that my assumption is that ones number of partners is, generally, inversely proportional to the selectivity of the chooser.Aren't you just assuming that the avarage equates to high standards here? When, in fact, there can be many different reasons for the number of partners that people have?
Assuming this holds true for everyone, does it not imply that in some circumstances it might be more reasonable to apply more "casual" standards?
Yes, with the caveat that "more" doesn't mean none. Using your personal circumstance as an example, I would like to clarify that I am not implying that someone should wait for "the one." In point of fact, I don't really buy into the concept. My experience has been that people's characteristics, both good and bad, are not always immediately obvious, so a thoroughly admirable woman is well worth the attempt, even, and actually, especially if she doesn't seem perfect at the first.
-
I read "A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court" some years ago and thought it was very entertaining.
Suntzu00
I've read more than half of his works and would particularly recommend Connecticut Yankee. I thought it was hilarious. His letters and essays are all worth a read as well.
-
You still have not provided an objective validation.
How many people, and in what time span is "promiscuous?"
How "high" must a persons value be before it is not being promiscuous to sleep with them? And how long and well must you know them?
Is anyone less valuable that say, Ayn Rand, unacceptable? What is the standard here?
I think you are looking for too concrete of an approach. Knowing someone for six months, and seeing them for 3 hours every month is very different from knowing them for six weeks and spending sixteen hours of every day with them. I realize that there can be outliers but outliers can't form the basis of moral decision making. Because they're rare you have to adjust to them as they occur.
In my opinion, as a general rule, I think around six months is a reasonable amount of time to get to know someone, assuming a reasonable amount of time together alone and in the context of each others friends and families, in order to determine if you would like to become involved with them. In that context, a relationship you chose to be in would have a few years to develop into something more meaningful or fizzle out if he or she isn't the one. This would likely function on an honest basis as opposed to other scenarios like sleeping with someone who "felt right" on the first night and spending the next four months trying to justify it because the intense emotional connection you got from the sex forces you to evade their inherent lack of moral worth and try to focus on the little good that is there. This sort of time frame when considered with the time between relationships leads me to think that up to 8 or so relationships would be in the reasonable range before there would be reason to immediately assume poor values or carelessness with their emotions.
Faster is more careless and I think people tend to do better when they are a little greedy with how they hand out their affections. I don't think it necessary to wait for your perfect soul mate or whatever, if that's what your asking with the Ayn Rand as a standard, question.
-
Statistics are NOT valid. Noting what people actually do, in no way informs one about what they SHOULD do.
"The terms promiscuous, slut, whore, etc are all just conceptual place holders for the realization that the person you are evaluating has low moral standards and poor discrimination and discernment."
On what basis? Why would you say thay had low moral standards? By what standard?
Statistics are completely valid, they just don't necessarily imply causation. The usefulness is that they help move the assumptions out of the realm of anecdotes. Most people that I am close with are at the lower end of the spectrum but someone in a different peer group could reasonably conclude that the average was closer to 15 or 20. What that tells me is that most people can reasonably find 4 or so high value people, worth sleeping with, over the course of their lives. If you get many standard deviations outside of that then there is an implication of differences in standards, necessarily except for cases of really great luck. This is particularly true of women since the required amount of effort to find someone to have sex with amounts to driving to a bar and saying, "yes." It applies to men also, but with a shift to slightly higher numbers because there is a bit of effort required to even get a girl to say yes...though less and less as women get easier which has been the case for the last 50 years or so.
The basis, I described after the statistic, was that I know from my own experiences how rare people of high value are, and how much time and energy must be devoted in order to find and vet them, to be even reasonably certain of their value. If someone tells me that they find this sort of person bi-weekly, bi-annually, or every 6 years, then I have a great deal of information about how they establish their values.
I'm not hostile. I don't go out of my way to call promiscuous people names. Ultimately, they'll get to experience the consequences(emotional, sexual, and possibly otherwise) of their mistakes as we all do, without my help. That said I'm not going to ignore the symbolism and correlation of someone's approach to this major value in their lives and its connection to their approaches to all of life's other values and deny myself an extremely valuable predictor of their potential to add or subtract from my life.
Edit...I reread your question and realized that I didn't really answer it directly. The standard is my familiarity with reality and the nature of human relationships. In a human time-frame some things are possible and somethings are not. I would react similarly if someone told me that they had 137 REALLY good friends or they wrote a really GREAT novel...last week, or thought they had a really good chance of winning the lottery. I would simply not weight their opinions on anything very highly.
In short, the depth of emotional reactions is tied to experience and time. To shorten those implies a lack of depth and understanding in it.
I also wanted to clarify that I do think that people can change over time, but that they usually don't much after 25 or so and even then, never without the scars.
-
Can anyone provide an objective definition, criteria, or standard by which to judge one as "promiscuous?"
Obviously their is not a standardized cutoff line or anything, but I think it is possible to make a reasonable assumption about someone's standards based on your own experiences.
For a starting place, according to this study, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19374216/ 9% of women have had 15 or more sexual partners in their lifetime, with the average being 4. So more than 4 is less selective and less than 4 is more selective, on average. 15 is far less selective. Obviously luck and the individuals capacity for character judgment can cause that to vary a bit, though probably not much.
For example, I know from my own experiences that finding people of value that are also romantically available to you is a fairly rare occurrence, so if someone tells me they've had 42 partners and each of those partners was an amazing conglomeration of values, they're probably just lying to themselves and me. I can safely assume, in that situation that they have pretty low standards and their having chosen me to have sex with is all but meaningless at that point. There is no "recognition of values," spiritual connection, or increased relational longevity as a result. It's..."just cheap fun," and any meaning they pretend to tie to it is entirely dependent on their capacity to compartmentalize(read:evade) their own hacked up value base.
The terms promiscuous, slut, whore, etc are all just conceptual place holders for the realization that the person you are evaluating has low moral standards and poor discrimination and discernment. They evaluate sex as a celebration of values lowly and probably evaluate human achievement lowly as well. People's pasts are fairly good predictors of their futures and those terms are just identifications of that.
-
In grad school, I reached a point where I knew I would not be able to do 100% of the reading and work assigned to me.
I hated that about formal schooling. I had to approach it the same way and estimate how much need to be done for each professor, which ended up with some really strange outlays of time, with say, 70% devoted to one class, 15% to another, and 5% each to the other 3. It caused me to spend my time and energy not based on the areas of my greatest interest but rather on how much of a hard-ass the prof wanted to be.
As far as each class goes, the syllabus makes it fairly easy to discern priorities. If the 2 exams are worth 60% of your grade, quizzes are worth 35% and homework 5%, then homework is an after thought if you have free time after everything else is done. If you have 4 exams worth 20% each and homework worth 20%, you have to do it to avoid praying for a C.
-
Why is sex so important to Ayn Rand. Where does all this importance come from? I've read some explanations but none have been satisfactory.
Clearly I cannot speak for Ayn Rand or Objectivism, but my take on it is that it is related far more to a sense of life thing than a logical argument. Our perceptual apparatus is taking in millions of sights, sounds, and feelings a second, of which we are rationally cognizant of around 40 and able to focus on 1-ish. I would wager that the rest of our experiences probably have an impact on us but in a less reasonable way. For example, a fairly well known tendency that people have is to be far more receptive to a person or idea, if they have encountered it or them before. It's as though your subconscious keeps a running tally of experiences even when you are not specifically conscious of it.
In way you describe it might seem as though it were possible to compartmentalize low value sex and high value sex, but in actual practice, your subconscious mind has already evaluated sex as being something you do with someone you find physically attractive. Your conscious mind can attempt to override it and assign value based on character and virtue, but with about as much success as intentionally changing your favorite color or flavor of ice cream.
Likely, the more casual sex you have, the more difficult it will become to make the act spiritual with your high value partner, since through repetition the subjective evaluation has been enshrined in your automatized emotional responses. Not impossible, but probably impossible to reverse completely or to exit that lifestyle unscathed.
If you want me to expand on anything or clarify I'd be happy to, but my experience with this subject is that the verity is difficult to grasp outside of the actual experiences and attempts at debate are usually ineffective. From relationships that I have seen and experienced, I am pretty certain about the development of a mind/body dichotomy and the subsequent loss of value in the act, but it isn't something that I will attempt to prove.
I don't know if you meant to be ironic or if you actually are that fatalistic about it, but the idea that finding a woman of value is impossible to you is something I find to be exceedingly unlikely. I would suggest that you look harder or more likely, reevaluate what things of value you require in someone else if the standard is impossibly difficult to achieve.
-
Does anybody know if you can just pass a test to obtain a high school equivilancy degree in Florida? That would be very similar to IACA. Eight days may indeed be enough time to train or retrain a dropout of average intelligence into a position where he is ready to pass a series of tests. If he can pass the tests (HSED, GED or IACA), he should be able to refrence that fact on his resume because it would be useful to both employers and educators.
When I lived there, you could get a GED.
This was a couple decades ago, but then in Florida the quality of public education was such that it might not be much of an exaggeration to say that you could get the same amount of knowledge in 8 well designed days.
More green jobs.....oh....
in Political Philosophy
Posted · Edited by aequalsa
If you watched this speech 15 months ago and did NOT know beyond any shadow of doubt that it would turn out this way, raise your hand...then smack yourself in the face with it.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/31/us-solyndra-idUSTRE77U5K420110831