economics

Welfare state economy: where the state produces goods and services for all.

Free market economy: (a myth) where you can freely buy and sell goods and services.

Neo-liberalism: form of neoclassical economics where public goods are privatised and monetized, where public goods and services are minimised. The process we more from a welfare state to a free market economy?

The three forms above are hard to state categorically with-out conditions. Consider in the “free” market where a monopoly doesn’t allow new players. eg. the duopoly we have with our mega supermarkets. Consider NZ giving welfare to corporations…

My Father started an Anti Economist league where they agitate for economists to not be involved in policy making, and that the study of economics is not a science.

Hegemony is an aggressive form of the dominant narrative, influence, and authority over others. I used to have a t-shirt I made saying Subvert the hedgemony of imputed needs – by which we meant things such as deodorant, perfumes.

A school example could be a 13 year old friend having home homework about Kiwisaver with no recollection of discussion over how this will increase the gap between the have and have nots due to a government policy and has the strong possibility of leading to the government removing itself from provissioning for the elderly. Or a discussion on the share market and the kind of shares that “make” money. Making money from money rather than investment in people.

Re Smith:

A move away from thinking as a member of a group to being individualistic. (I wonder if this is a cause of cognitive dissonance for many. Was it Nigel Latta who showed that psychology experiment on babies where they were drawn to the shape/colour of an object that showed kindness). Colonisation as it relates to Capitalism and the quest for objects and status through the mighty dollar.

(Michel Foucout and the restructuring of the French education system to ready people for the work-force)..

Re terms:

I find it hard here to suppress my angry rant at such things that I feel I have had a problem with since a child that keep isolating me as an educator. When I redid my teaching practicum (TER in 2021) I had an associate teacher (also principal) that was actively promoting teaching in a way that I recognised from my childhood. I know that I have been lucky to have been teaching at a school which had: a Montessori strand (and some of the ideas had filtered through the school), an Immersion strand (which also taught the whole school Kapa Haka) as well as classes where most people would recognise the style of teaching. At teacher’s college I became interested in democratic schools and long-term examples such as Summer Hill school (in the UK) and the Sudbury schools in the US. I have been reading books by Peter Grey and other proponents of alternative education. My focus is not just on cultural ideas but also on adult versus child.

meritocracy: that those of merit will ride to the top: assumptions – the system, then teachers decide what is of merit and then assume that there is equal interest and opportunity to achieve this merit.

freedom of the individual: This is rubbish in that we say the “freedom of the individual” but we actually don’t give freedom as we can not acually choose to buy NZ made for instance if we are not given all the information – eg the icebreaker business model. But I guess here it is ment the focus is on what is good for the individual over what is good for the group. School doesn’t seem to have an option for assessment at a group level – NCEA individual results. No empasis on we only achieve if we all have success.

competition: and how do you think it goes down having non competitve sport at the early years at school…

I renounce any claim to any of those neoliberal terms and any of that capitalism rubbish. I think Maori perspectives in relating to emphasising the collective are those I have tried to adopt in my life.

Why did NZ adopt the model we have and not be influenced instead by such things as Montessori and Stiener ideas?