I agree with the skin in the game concept as an important component. One form of this skin in the game concept might be reasonable qualification standards for admission and continuation. Most public Universities have those in place. In other words if you are a slacker you're not likely to be able to qualify. I don't think it is workable to get into a debate on the merits of this or that discipline. Having to fund things we're unenthusiastic about, to put it mildly, I suppose is one of the downsides to democracy. The nice thing about anarchy would be that we'd get free rein over what we spent our money on, assuming money still somehow existed.
Good information. Thanks. It seems most of your examples, if not all, come from countries with mixed economies. Among major nations, I don't know of any that are anything close to pure capitalism or pure socialism. I don't know anything much about Dubai, other than it appears to be a brutal place to get stuck if you are a non-citizen guest worker.
Keep in mind that in other countries where college education is free a much smaller percentage of students are admitted into 4 year universities. The percentage of university graduates is a much smaller percentage of the general population. This is what happens in an environment where university education is effectively rationed, the cut-off to get in much higher. This also explains the increasing number of European students appearing at American universities because they failed to get in back home. Is the U.S. ready for a mere 14% of our population being university educated rather than 30%+ -- because the education is "free". How do European countries stay competitive in manufacturing and other sectors... there are two paths in high school; the university track and the trades school track. A large number of students who are not in the top 10% of their high school class are directed to the trade school track. The trade schools are one or two year schools including internships that train students for jobs in the trades sector. This system has helped Germany and other countries maintain a competitive workforce while having a much lower percentage of university graduates in their population. The reality is that the U.S. has too may worthless college majors, worthless degrees (e.g. for profit universities), and worthless graduates who cannot get a job in their field. We would be far better off directing the high school students not in the top 10% to trade schools and enable them to enter work fields where they are employable. This however requires a complete re-thinking in the U.S. that any 4 year degree of any type is valuable and desirable. As well as bursting the current higher education bubble -- forcing a reduction in the number of schools and students.
I wouldn't get too twisted up about the campaign trail hyperbole. If, and it's a HUGE if, Sanders gets elected president, there's no way in hell this ever sees the light of day. The golden goose, aka Wall Street, spreads money across all party lines. Lefties love taxes, almost as much as they love lining own pockets with "campaign contributions". There will be no tax on trading. The corporate masters won't approve, and our criminally corrupt congress knows who butters their bread.
Wall Street had the govt and the exchanges kill the edge we had daytrading. If they thought they could make more money be forcing non market makers and specialists to pay a tax... they would do it in a New York minute. Who would have thought Wall Street which owns many large businesses would support a carbon tax... until we learned they would run the carbon exchange. Voting in Politicians who want more taxes is like sending a large market order to a market maker on a low liquidity stock. Your are going to get the absolute worst fill they can manage. for instance Democrats had been talking about single payer for decades... look what Obamacare turned into by the time Wall Street and the insurance companies were done with the democrats.
You raise a few good points but, for the sake of argument, a cut-off at the top 10% seems too restrictive. I don't pretend to know where the number ought to be, but 10% strikes me as somewhat prohibitive at first blush.
Keep in mind that in several European countries only the top 10% of the high school class is placed on the university-bound academic track. In some high schools it is more, in others less. I don't know what the right number is... but it is definitely below 20% across most countries that offer "free" university schooling.
I agree, but the US is way too soft to ever implement such a program. The truth is that no kid left behind is a joke. Some kids should be left behind because given unlimited resources in the form of education / substitute parenting (that's really what pre-K education is about), they will consume far more resources than they will ever produce. And money that goes towards that wasted education cannot be spent on defense and health research which benefits every citizen. I like the idea of a trade school route as the default, but there should always be a way to further education if / when the person becomes sufficiently motivated.
US seems to be heading little by little in this direction even without Sanders. Hillary would probably move somewhat in this direction. Seems there are lefties in Wall Street that have emerged since Obama came in.
News update: Lynx, a big Belgian broker, announced that they saw a 43% decline in volume of transactions that were hurt by the speculation tax. Overall volume rose because investors massively move away from taxed products into not taxed products. The amount of taxes that Lynx should transfer to the government was supposed to rise to cruising speed. Reality is that the revenues from this speculation tax DROPPED 32% from previous, already minimal amounts.