Should they teach basic finance at school?

[Cloo]

Not that many years back if a woman wanted to open her own bank account (shock, horror, end of civilisation etc etc) she had to get her husbands permission....

About 20 years ago, my dad and his sister wanted the same car, quite a sporty one. My mum went to a dealership to enquire about getting two of these cars and was literally laughed at. Women couldn't be buying two sporty cars!

So, as you can imagine, she took her business elsewhere.

 

[Callie]

I think some kids get to see what happens if you dont budget and count the pennies outside of school - whether or not that helps or not I don't know? Seemed to work for me.

When i was a secondary school we did stuff in tutor groups about general life gubbins, which would seem like a sensible enough place to address this kind of thing.

I dont know how much difference it would make? Most people are actually aware that spending money they don't have/isnt theirs is a bit silly but they do it anyway

maths might make more sense or be better understood if it could be used to apply it to real life scenarios like paying back a loan but that isnt part of the curriculum and would take away from that so i doubt it would ever be incuded

 

[kabbes]

I don't know if maths has changed since we did it but why not work real life examples into the maths class.
Q1. A 60" plasma TV costs £1045. The shop has a 30% off sale how much would the TV cost?

Q2. The shop offers you a store card with an APR of 29.6% to buy the TV on. How much including interest would you pay for the TV?

It might get the kids interested and see what the point of maths is.

AFAIK they do teach maths like this.

We certainly had to do it when I was at school a hundred years ago, or whatever it was.

 

[kabbes]

I'm saying that teaching that lower inflation is more important than lower unemployment is.

Where do you get that from what I said?

As long as the world is set up as it is, people will have to know about money. This includes understanding personal finance, so they don't get ripped off. It should also include a basic understanding of inflation and interest rates and the relationship between them so that they don't, for example, get in over their heads on a mortgage.

I didn't even suggest that you teach the relationship between inflation and unemployment at all, let alone give them any message as to which is more important.

 

[AnnO'Neemus]

I asked about this when I was at school and was told it wasn't necessary as my husband would do all that for me

That's kind of funny, but not, at the same time. Shocking, really.

 

[AnnO'Neemus]

About 20 years ago, my dad and his sister wanted the same car, quite a sporty one. My mum went to a dealership to enquire about getting two of these cars and was literally laughed at. Women couldn't be buying two sporty cars!

So, as you can imagine, she took her business elsewhere.

It still happens.

I recently tried to buy a car in Qatar, I was thinking of getting a Nissan Tiida, just a sensible little runaround as a first car as I've just passed my test. I was in the showroom for 15 whole minutes (I know, because I kept ostentatiously checking my watch) and was ignored the whole time. Admittedly, the sales staff were dealing with other customers, but they could at least have acknowledged me and said hello and asked me to take a seat and wait. For a while I was standing up, waiting to be approached, but when no one acknowledged me and said 'please take a seat, we'll be with you in a moment, Madam', I just sat down myself. To make matters worse, the showroom assistant (known as the "teaboy" over here even when they're 40-something), wandered up and down giving everyone else tea and coffee and he also ignored me.

So, after 15 minutes of being totally, and I mean totally ignored, I got up, got my business card out of my bag and went up to one of the desks and said "I want to buy a car. If you want to sell one, call me."

An hour or so later I got a call from a grovelling manager who apologised profusely and said that his staff perhaps thought I was waiting for a car to come out of a service or something. I said it was more like they thought a woman couldn't possibly be buying a car and they were waiting for my non-existent husband to sell a car to. He asked if they could help me at all and invited me back, but I declined.

So I went to the Saab showroom, was treated by a lovely German chap like a human being as opposed to a man's appendage, and so I bought a car from him instead. I spent twice as much as I originally intended to but I've sooooooooooooooooooo fallen in love with my Saab 9-3 convertible!

The thing is, the Nissan showroom is right smack bang next to my organisation's office compound and every day I go to work I'm tempted to drive up and do a 'Pretty Woman': Remember the woman who you couldn't be arsed serving and who you were ignoring because she didn't have a husband with her? Well, see that lovely shiny, brand spanking new expensive Saab convertible out there? The commission that went to the Saab salesman could've been yours.

But I won't. I'll just tell anyone and everyone I meet who's looking to buy a car about the difference in treatment you get and leave it to them to decide what kind of customer service they're looking for.

 

[AnnO'Neemus]

p.s. the answer to the original question is yes, they should.

 

[gaijingirl]

I spent the whole of this term so far in Citizenship teaching about money - things like how to save, the difference between instant access and long term savings accounts etc...

In the maths class I covered they were working out how to calculate the service charge at restaurants - which I told them, living in London, was a very useful skill because there are plenty of restaurants out there waiting to rip them off!

Sadly the majority of my students will go to KFC so it doesn't necessarily apply...

So I think that in general this sort of thing is covered in the curriculum.

Additionally, some of my students can't even tell the time - aged 14, and most have very low reading ages, so to start teaching them about inflation rates, something I have difficulty with, etc could be quite a challenge, not to mention probably not the best use of the limited time we have.

 

[Cloo]

I think there is a general problem with many kids' attitude to money in that they solely think of it in terms of 'Money is for buying cool stuff'. I mean, it is, in part, but we all have responsibilities, whether we like it or not, to pay towards tedious things like tax, bills, maybe fines when we're naughty and so on.

One example of this would be from something I remember years ago - some prog about mentoring where some quite sloaney bird took a smirking jack-the-lad under her wing. He had a court fine to pay, and so she got him a job with a friend and he earned enough cash in hand over a few days to pay the fine. She asked whether he wanted to give her the money so she could go pay the fine, or whether he could be trusted to keep hold of it. He assured her that he was. Turns up next day, gormless look on his face 'Heh heh, I spent it'. Basically because if he had money in his hand, he couldn't see why he shouldn't spend it on fun stuff. The woman, I guess as she was so desperate for him not to face imprisonment, made the mistake (I think) of paying the fine for him in the end!

That's an extreme example, but I do think it trickles down to an attitude where because money is scarce, it seems plain nuts to some kids to hold on to it, when you could be spending it. I think many are unprepared for an adult life full of bills and taxes, and hence the amount of debt we see.

 

[butchersapron]

Where do you get that from what I said?

From this

Things like where inflation comes from, why the government might seek to control it, what interest rates are and how inflation is linked to interest rates

As long as the world is set up as it is, people will have to know about money. This includes understanding personal finance, so they don't get ripped off. It should also include a basic understanding of inflation and interest rates and the relationship between them so that they don't, for example, get in over their heads on a mortgage.

I didn't even suggest that you teach the relationship between inflation and unemployment at all, let alone give them any message as to which is more important.

Surely it's better to deal with those attempting to rip them off?

See, what is "a basic understanding of inflation and interest rates and the relationship between them" and mortgagages being normal - that's not objective, it's ideologial already. It's just hidden as being neutral, like business studies.

 

[butchersapron]

I think there is a general problem with many kids' attitude to money in that they solely think of it in terms of 'Money is for buying cool stuff'. I mean, it is, in part, but we all have responsibilities, whether we like it or not, to pay towards tedious things like tax, bills, maybe fines when we're naughty and so on.

One example of this would be from something I remember years ago - some prog about mentoring where some quite sloaney bird took a smirking jack-the-lad under her wing. He had a court fine to pay, and so she got him a job with a friend and he earned enough cash in hand over a few days to pay the fine. She asked whether he wanted to give her the money so she could go pay the fine, or whether he could be trusted to keep hold of it. He assured her that he was. Turns up next day, gormless look on his face 'Heh heh, I spent it'. Basically because if he had money in his hand, he couldn't see why he shouldn't spend it on fun stuff. The woman, I guess as she was so desperate for him not to face imprisonment, made the mistake (I think) of paying the fine for him in the end!

That's an extreme example, but I do think it trickles down to an attitude where because money is scarce, it seems plain nuts to some kids to hold on to it, when you could be spending it. I think many are unprepared for an adult life full of bills and taxes, and hence the amount of debt we see.

It's absolutely relentless with you isn't it? Such easy arguments to make when you're born into money. Such stupid assumptions on thread after thread.

Thinsk about this for one second - it's your own words

where because money is scarce, it seems plain nuts to some kids to hold on to it, when you could be spending it.

How about dealing with the situation where some people are skint as fuck and deal with it by acting like this?

 

[AnnO'Neemus]

where because money is scarce, it seems plain nuts to some kids to hold on to it, when you could be spending it.

How about dealing with the situation where some people are skint as fuck and deal with it by acting like this?

I think Cloo was making exactly the same point tbh...

 

[scifisam]

As two others have said, this kind of financial competence is generally taught at school already, during maths and citizenship. It's part of the Skills For Life agenda.

I think it is useful (that is, you're right - basic finance should be taught at school), but not everyone does. Some people see it as using school as just a way of making future little workers rather than moulding future people. They have good arguments sometimes. However, I don't think it's a bad thing in any way at all when used in maths, because making things real in that way does so much to help people learn basic concepts.

@Butcher's Apron: since kabbes ddn't mention unemployment at all, I think you're seeing what you want to see.

 

[butchersapron]

I think Cloo was making exactly the same point tbh...

No, she was dealing with poor people and their shocking behaviour, not *why* people are poor.

 

[butchersapron]

@Butcher's Apron: since kabbes ddn't mention unemployment at all, I think you're seeing what you want to see.

s/he didn't have to - that's the accepted balance in contemporary economics. Inflation/employment -and so arguing that one is better than the other is ideological. And the 'economic' common sense of the last few decades, of the capitalist offensive is that inflation is the great evil. What shall we teach?

What do people get taught in business studies?

 

[Gmart]

evil

Inflation and unemployment are not always linked in economics, and indeed we had a long period in the 70's and 80's when both were rising at the same time. The Philips Curve, which is what they called it, was shown only to work when no one was looking at it. The moment we noticed the relationship, it went wrong.

Still you're trying to get to your 'us and them' argument. And I'm unlikely to stop you.

I think it's a great idea to teach basic finance and economics to kids, you just have to draw the line after basic. A definition of inflation as the general rise of prices is not wrong, while the definition of unemployment as the number of people without a job, is similarly straightforward.

The interest rate and inflation (the original point) are important to teach together because they affect each other so directly. This is not dogma, but a fact.

 

[Mrs Magpie]

As two others have said, this kind of financial competence is generally taught at school already, during maths and citizenship. It's part of the Skills For Life agenda.

I can confirm this.

 

[Gmart]

Actually I think that everyone should be taught critical thinking so that they do not fall prey to those who use fallacies to prove things. Recognising what is logical and what is not, is how we have progressed as a species on this planet and should not be cast aside.

 

[butchersapron]

Inflation and unemployment are not always linked in economics, and indeed we had a long period in the 70's and 80's when both were rising at the same time. The Philips Curve, which is what they called it, was shown only to work when no one was looking at it. The moment we noticed the relationship, it went wrong.

Still you're trying to get to your 'us and them' argument. And I'm unlikely to stop you.

I think it's a great idea to teach basic finance and economics to kids, you just have to draw the line after basic. A definition of inflation as the general rise of prices is not wrong, while the definition of unemployment as the number of people without a job, is similarly straightforward.

The interest rate and inflation (the original point) are important to teach together because they affect each other so directly. This is not dogma, but a fact.

Please, the orthodox economic thinking since the demolition of the phillips curve has been that the options are a direct choice between low inflation or unemployment - please don't tell me that you've missed the last 20 years of neo-liberal orthodoxy. This is my whole point - what are people going to be taught about the link the between inflation and unemployment? Your market theocracy? That the two cannot rise together, they do rise together? Which one? Which of the contradictory theries should be taught?

As for your 'factual' 'definitions' of unemployment and 'inflation' - are you joking? You don't think that there's competiting poltically motivated defintions containing different factors? Which one are you going to teach? The one that counts people opn the sick as unemployed? The ones that counts kids on shitty workfare schemes as unemployed? Those living on savings/interest etc? And why - there's tons of them? Which commodities will be used to determine th arete of inflation? And why? As soon as you make your choice you're into either a) idelogy or b) an teaching economic course by virtue of trying to cover all bases.

 

[Gmart]

As for your 'factual' 'definitions' of unemployment and 'inflation' - are you joking? You don't think that there's competiting poltically motivated defintions containing different factors? Which one are you going to teach? The one that counts people opn the sick as unemployed? The ones that counts kids on shitty workfare schemes as unemployed? Those living on savings/interest etc? And why - there's tons of them? Which commodities will be used to determine th arete of inflation? And why? As soon as you make your choice you're into either a) idelogy or b) an teaching economic course by virtue of trying to cover all bases.

So your solution, don't teach them anything or go into yet more personal opinion as to what denotes what?

Oh! And the philips curve analysis is just as I describe it, they even invented a name for the phenomena of having both at the same time, stagflation.

 

[butchersapron]

So your solution, don't teach them anything or go into yet more personal opinion as to what denotes what?

Oh! And the philips curve analysis is just as I describe it, they even invented a name for the phenomena of having both at the same time, stagflation.

I'm quite aware of that - it was what partially lead to the overturning of dominant ideas about inflation and unemployment - which is exactly my point. If they were pushing this nonsense form 1945-75 what nonsense are they pushing now? When this orthodoxy is overturned? What are you going to teach them is true? Are the current dominant ideas the really true ones, despite being the exact opposite of the previous three decades correct interpretations? What are you going to teach? What? And on what basis will you reach that decision?

And sorry, you saying 'well what would you do?' in no way deals with my criticisms of your 'proposals' - it just ignores them.

 

[Gmart]

If they were pushing this nonsense form 1945-75 what nonsense are they pushing now?
When this orthodoxy is overturned?
What are you going to teach them is true?
Are the current dominant ideas the really true ones, despite being the exact opposite of the previous three decades correct interpretations?
What are you going to teach?
What?
And on what basis will you reach that decision?

For a start Keynes is still correct in his analysis, although he failed to deal with inflation adequately because he died.

I presume you mean what will happen when that orthodoxy is overturned? Well you may as well say what will we do when Newton's laws are overturned? Well they won't be, they will be adjusted as technology improves, as economics will change as people learn about it, but this still doesn't mean that we shouldn't teach a basic definition of inflation, interest rates and unemployment.

Also economics is not a pure science, it is about people and exactly as happened with the Philips Curve, the moment these people spot a pattern they try to take advantage of it and the pattern fails. The same thing happened with the money supply methods of the 70's.

Teaching often has a certain aspect of personal interpretation even if it is the view of the historian who wrote the history book. The only subjects with 'truth' in them are the physical sciences.

The exam boards set the papers while the schools (as guided by the National Curriculum if you're in the state sector) decide what to teach.

And sorry, you saying 'well what would you do?' in no way deals with my criticisms of your 'proposals' - it just ignores them.

Here are you 'criticisms' which are actually just questions.

What are people going to be taught about the link the between inflation and unemployment? Your market theocracy?

My market theocracy? What assumptions are you making there? Please don't try and align me with any set ideology until you've actually seen me state it.

[Are you going to teach that] the two cannot rise together, they do rise together? Which one? Which of the contradictory theories should be taught?

These are not contradictory theories. With time both happen occasionally. Should I not tell the children because it's not certain enough. Part of this is teaching that sometimes the markets go up and sometimes they go down. By your rationale I should never teach that because it isn't certain enough.

You don't think that there's competiting poltically motivated definitions containing different factors?

Of course there are and we could have a class discussion about this if they are interested. If not, then they have the basic definitions and maybe they'll come back to it.

 

[butchersapron]

For a start Keynes is still correct in his analysis, although he failed to deal with inflation adequately because he died.

I didn't metion keynes - please don't try and turn the discussion to something that you feel more comfortable talking about

I presume you mean what will happen when that orthodoxy is overturned? Well you may as well say what will we do when Newton's laws are overturned? Well they won't be, they will be adjusted as technology improves, as economics will change as people learn about it, but this still doesn't mean that we shouldn't teach a basic definition of inflation, interest rates and unemployment.

Also economics is not a pure science, it is about people and exactly as happened with the Philips Curve, the moment these people spot a pattern they try to take advantage of it and the pattern fails. The same thing happened with the money supply methods of the 70's.

No, what happened, and what has actually happened throughout history is that certain economic theories are taught as being 100% true now and forever, but that wqhen they turn out to be bollocks another 100% true threory springs up to take it's place - so you had the ideas that dominated post-war economic thought being overturned post-1973 and another set of equally true ideas taking their place. And somehow to you this doesn't throw into doubt the validity or usefullness of the whole entreprise, quite the opposite - the factt that it can veer from side to side, turn itslef on its head, declare universal truths to be no longer true, and what was once self-evident nonsense into the rising sun is, in fact, a stength.

And no, i asked you what should be taught about 'inflation, interest rates and unemployment.' and why and questioned your assumption that there is some neutral objective view of these things that can be easily grasped free of any nasty politics or ideology - and that if you argue that all 'sides' should be taught as a response then yo're teaching an economic course, not basic financial skills. With all the same problems as above.

Teaching often has a certain aspect of personal interpretation even if it is the view of the historian who wrote the history book. The only subjects with 'truth' in them are the physical sciences.

The exam boards set the papers while the schools (as guided by the National Curriculum if you're in the state sector) decide what to teach.

And this, 'someone else would' is not an adequate answer to these questions i'm afraid. Who mentioned 'truth'?

Here are you 'criticisms' which are actually just questions.

Anf of course, a question couldn't possibly be critical could it?

My market theocracy? What assumptions are you making there? Please don't try and align me with any set ideology until you've actually seen me state it.

Your market theocracy as stated in your posts on many thread in P&P, which are taken together typical of market theocrats - 'it's human nature' (the economically rational individual) and so on - you don't need to formally state (or even properly understand) a postion to adopt it's central tenets - and you most certainly have picked up the market dogma from somewhere.

These are not contradictory theories. With time both happen occasionally. Should I not tell the children because it's not certain enough. Part of this is teaching that sometimes the markets go up and sometimes they go down. By your rationale I should never teach that because it isn't certain enough.

Yes they are contradictory - read any economics textbook from pre-1973 and you'll see statements that are now taken to be nonsese, read one post 93 and you'll more than likely see a section dealing with why the previous orthodoxy was wrong. I don't get what on earth you're tring to say with the rest of that post. What's it got to do with the questions that i've asked you?

Of course there are and we could have a class discussion about this if they are interested. If not, then they have the basic definitions and maybe they'll come back to it.

And back to the start we go once more - i'm asking you some questions about those basic defintions.

 

[Gmart]

Criticising and trolling while not actually saying anything constructive...

I didn't metion keynes

Yes you did:

If they were pushing this nonsense form 1945-75 what nonsense are they pushing now?

Despite this being an obvious fallacy, you raised the period when Economics was dominated by Keynesian economics, I assumed that you did that on purpose because you knew this, however seeing as you don't.

During the time period you gave, Keynesian economics were dominant and were responsible for the so-called golden age of continual growth after the war. This only came to an end with the Oil Shocks of the early 70's. During this time, Keynesian policies ensured that full employment was maintained. However this went wrong during the 70's when the theories had to be updated by Friedman.

What has actually happened throughout history is that certain economic theories are taught as being 100% true now and forever, but that when they turn out to be bollocks another 100% true threory springs up to take it's place

Nope, actually since Adam Smith economics has slowly got more sophisticated. The Keynesian vs monetarism debate of the 70's wasn't about extremes as you imply, but actually about quite sophisticated economics. The dramatic economic swings that you are talking about happened in the Victorian era, or maybe the Keynesian revolution itself might qualify

And no, i asked you what should be taught about 'inflation, interest rates and unemployment.

And I answered by stating the basic definitions I would use.

and I also stated why. In fact this whole thread has been set up for the why? Because it is a basic tool of existence to know. (IMO)

and questioned your assumption that there is some neutral objective view of these things

You are misrepresenting my view here, I stated that with a social science like economics the people have an effect on the system being studied. Something you have also failed to comment on.

And this, 'someone else would' is not an adequate answer to these questions i'm afraid. Who mentioned 'truth'?

I never said 'someone else would' and so that is a misquote. I actually pointed out that we have institutions specifically set up to take on certain responsibilities. And it was you who used the word 'truth' or 'true' first.

And of course, a question couldn't possibly be critical could it?

By definition questions are questions, thus not making a point but merely enquiring. You might feel that they were rhetorical, but that is just your opinion NOT fact. Physically they were just questions.

Your market theocracy as stated in your posts on many thread in P&P etc

So you are unhappy with my comments in the rest of P&P. So what? If you can logically rebut my arguments then do so, otherwise say nothing. It would be better for you and you might learn something. Ask some good questions.

you most certainly have picked up the market dogma from somewhere.

I acknowledge the strength of the market as an allocator of resources. Whether you choose to perceive this as dogma is purely your choice, I would call it logic, which is my choice. I also acknowledge its problems, as I see them.

If you feel that there is a better way of allocating resources then I'm all ears, but I get the impression you are much better at picking holes rather than actually bending your obvious intellect to something more constructive. Maybe you're stuck in some ideal you seem reluctant to dismiss? Just a guess... Many a marxist is stuck on Marx despite the authoritarian problems it has.

Yes they are contradictory

No they're not; if you just keep saying it, that doesn't suddenly make you right you know. In a dynamic system (that's with time) then sometimes they will be together sometimes not. I don't mind you not knowing, that's fine, it's just that simply stating the opposite to my view without explaining your logic just shows me how little you know. I suggest you work out what you know and what you don't know, and then not guess at stuff.

read any economics textbook from pre-1973 and you'll see statements that are now taken to be nonsese,

No, you will find less sophisticated theories which reflected the world less well. There will be reasons for these mistakes. You go on:

read one post 93 and you'll more than likely see a section dealing with why the previous orthodoxy was wrong.

It's important to learn from our mistakes.

I don't get what on earth you're trying to say with the rest of that post.

Now that's true, you just don't get it, and you seem unwilling to learn.

What's it got to do with the questions that i've asked you?

I took each of them in turn and answered them more than fully. You just didn't like my answers. Are you friends with Dennisr by any chance he does almost exactly the same thing...

i'm asking you some questions about those basic defintions.

And I answered them. You seem unhappy with the simplicity of my answers but I would be able to deal with any of the questions a child would have, as any teacher would. Also I would be able to plan my lessons enough to ensure that my time is well used, again as any teacher would. I wonder, do you trust teachers?

Meanwhile I'm still waiting for your well thought out solutions to all these questions or are you deciding not to teach them at all coz it's not certain or precise enough for you?

If a child asks you what inflation is, what would you say? C'mon, what are you holding back for? Are you concerned that your solutions are not going to work in the real world? Don't be scared of putting your view forward, if it's a good view i'll learn something, if it isn't you will! Or do you just throw criticism at anyone who dares to have an opinion? Are you just another troll looking for a fight who doesn't know what he's talking about, but hopes that we won't read the posts well enough to notice?

 

[butchersapron]

Sorry, but you have not answered a single one of my questions or the problems i raised about definitions. Not one. You've ignored them. You did not answer which competing definition of inflation, or unemployment you would adopt and why, you did not answer as to what you would teach people, the content of your 'lessons'. You haven't said anything beyond re-stating that you would teach kids what these definitions are and that the state would be in control of the content of this teaching. Which, as i noted above, brings you right back to my questions and which ignores the potential ideological motivations of such teachings in favour of adopting a primitive and unobtainible neutralist postion. You haven't answered and clearly have no intention of answering - is that because you suspect you know where'll they'll lead you?

Thanks for the 'teaching' though - if only i'd had such an attentive teacher who was unafraid of answering my questions at school.

 

[butchersapron]

And yes, i'm clearly a troll. Because, as we all know the definition of a troll is someone who takes issue and argues agianst your gcse 'economics' and market theology.

 

[Gmart]

You did not answer which competing definition of inflation, or unemployment you would adopt and why

Yes I did. I actually put quite a lot of work into it but you just didn't read it. Whatever Butcher, you have no answers and refuse to read mine, so there's no point in being here. I love the way you deal with people you fail to understand, just tying over and over again that I am refusing to answer your questions, even when it is obvious that I am. Life is too short to communicate with the unreasonable.

 

[butchersapron]

Yes I did. I actually put quite a lot of work into it but you just didn't read it. Whatever Butcher, you have no answers and refuse to read mine, so there's no point in being here. I love the way you deal with people you fail to understand, just tying over and over again that I am refusing to answer your questions, even when it is obvious that I am. Life is too short to communicate with the unreasonable.

You can show me exactly where you've answered the questions then.

 

[cutandsplice]

During the time period you gave, Keynesian economics were dominant and were responsible for the so-called golden age of continual growth after the war. This only came to an end with the Oil Shocks of the early 70's. During this time, Keynesian policies ensured that full employment was maintained. However this went wrong during the 70's when the theories had to be updated by Friedman.

This is a laughable description of the period. This is such an embarrasing post. You have no idea of history or how the world works. Are you really a teacher? If so, you should pack it in now.

 

[Gmart]

This is a laughable description of the period. This is such an embarrasing post. You have no idea of history or how the world works. Are you really a teacher? If so, you should pack it in now.

Well you don't know who or what I am precisely, however I know that you have never studied this period from an economic POV, or else you would not have made your comment(I note as with Butcher you don't suggest an alternative). I suppose this is the problem with sites like U75. How does one stop the uninformed from commenting on subjects which they patently have no idea about? Their opinions are put forward as if equivalent to those of us who do. The same goes for Butcher, who patently knows nothing economically, but sadly doesn't have the sense to recognise this.

With people like this 'allowed' to comment (and at times actually exercise control!), it is no surprise that the Elite tend to take control with force. The worst thing is that they patently believe that they are right, and even are helping when they are actually simply giving the Elite the excuse they need to maintain their control!

Lack of education of course doesn't help.