http://youtu.be/22HcvlmfRZY?t=27s

Even the crazy know what you mean.

Similar things happened at my school. They even completely remodeled one building twice in about three years, when it looked perfectly fine originally, and while nicer, looked perfectly fine after the first remodel too, but they apparently needed to redo it yet again.

One thing you need to consider though is oftentimes money provided to schools has conditions attached to it. For example, I could provide $10,000 a year towards my school, but say it must be used on new computers in an Accounting lab every single year. Even though the school really doesn't need this, it is the only thing they can spend it on, so it winds up appearing ridiculous to others.

You misunderstand me, and I don't need Wikipedia links. I do political philosophy for a living. But thanks! c:

What I am saying is that capitalism and anarchy cannot co-exist, as any attempt leads to private tyranny, the formation of a state, and thus some variant of a fascist or perhaps monarchist institution. Private control, unleashed, expands exponentially. Your "free market" is dependent on a state. And, yes, that state also has the potential to destroy said market. It's a balancing act. The very formation of the capitalist economy depended on statist mercantilism in order to even get started. I wrote a paper on it not long ago, actually, as it's a history I find full of interesting implications.

Syndicalism is a form of union-based socialism, with the means of production democratically controlled by the workers, with elected management and institutions to protect that. It's a theory of democratic economics which is indeed opposed to privatised economics.

Mutualists, for the record, opposed private economic control. Mutualism is a socialist-anarchist philosophy advocating a communal culture based on voluntary contribution. It's decidedly an anti-capitalist philosophy and was created by an anti-capitalist philosopher (Proudhon, who claimed that all private property is theft from society).

Fascism is absolutely not syndicalism. It in fact stands in absolute opposition to it. For one thing, syndicalism is related to the anarchist school of thought. Some syndicalists are in fact anarchists, and others propose a very minimalist democratic state for managing legal/production conflicts. Whereas, fascism is a super-statist ideology based on the idea that capitalism is good, but that it eventually decays under decadence. Fascism thus takes a strongly centralized right-wing government with a nearly limitless leader and uses that to manage and assist the capitalist class while attempting to uplift lower classes into a middle class status (as long as those lower/middle class individuals meet the terms of the fascist, be they religious, racist, ideological, etc.).

Thus, syndicalism is workers' management of formerly capitalist production, while fascism is statist management of capitalist production.

Corporatism is also a radical departure from syndicalism. Corporatism is modern capitalism, to which syndicalism is entirely opposed. With the growth of the capitalist class into a super-capitalist class owning/maintaining enormous corporations on an international level and reaping profits at previously uncomprehensible levels, capitalists found that it made good business sense to use said money to influence the state in their favour. At the same time, those politicians who are courted benefit from the bribes and support. Effectively, corporatism is the stage of capitalism in which the oligarchy is made concrete, eradicating practical democracy and limiting competition wherever possible. At the same time, it limits the cooperation of anyone not in that ruling body.

If you want to be a defender of lower-stage capitalism and oppose higher stages of capitalism like corporatism and imperialism, then you need to advocate cultural and political change in order to limit how much power private individuals can acquire. You might find Robert Reich's book, Supercapitalism, to be in line with your views. c:

Personally, I think the idea that this balance can be struck is foolhardy, and that more radical change is in order. We probably disagree on that matter.

Just more attempts at bashing MS

They can, no one is stopping them, but for the better of society as a whole we have a public education system. They can opt out sending their own kids, but they cant opt out of the funding.  There is more religious indoctrination going on then state indoctrination by the way.

Most of the countries that have better scores do better with social safety net programs like feeding kids. A kid that is hungry doesnt learn well. Like either subsidies for single mother or poorer familes so the kids have care givers rather then people working multiple jobs and the kids being taken care of by the TV.  So our direct spending for the schools are higher, but the indirect taking care of the poor children results in poorer results.  So our poor kids go to school hungry and go home to an empty home. Other countries poor kids get fed and go home to a caregiver who has the time to work on studies with the kid.

Between my wife and I our kids are exempt from estate taxes for the first $10.5 million of our estate. OK we are doing very well, but not that well.  Well I am a firm believer of measureing return on investment. Paying off a 3% mortgage with money i could have in liquid investments is poor money management in my opinion.  As for the LOC if I have the discipline to invest I have the discipline to keep the LOC at a low enough amount. In reality I rarely every use it. 

By the way the LOC route is how Marc Zuckerberg has disclosed he will access his wealth. He will simply let his investments grow, live off his income and when he needs additional short term cash he uses the LOC.

100% Agree, unbelievable people are backing ANY company over this, it happens a lot in the UK as well, its time it was Stamped out!

So what? Every company is doing this. The US's juducial system is completely broken and they're passing corporation and rich people friendly laws every weeks. Law makers in the US don't want corporations to pay taxes. They already pay less taxes than actual humans.

This won't affect anything since it's not against the law and they will keep doing it.

See, in MN, we already begin getting taxed after $1 million (so I believe it would be $2 million for a married couple).

Regarding the "poor" money management, as I said, I would certainly have more money in my retirement if I took the full 30 years to pay off the mortgage. But it isn't always about having the max amount of money...there is a tradeoff. And for me, I'd much rather have 20 years of being debt free and never worrying about a mortgage payment again. The decision especially becomes clear when even assuming unrealistically low raises, etc, I will have several million in retirement, which is more than I will need for the style of life I desire.

Regarding the LOC, whether a rich person does it really doesn't mean much, as a lot of rich people are notoriously terrible with their money (perfect example would be leasing instead of buying stuff). I've never really had, nor ever see myself having the need for what you refer to as short term cash via a loan, though. I have a philosophy you should just have a decent chunk of liquid money available, so if anything happens, it really never becomes a concern in the first place (once again, I could certainly invest this and make more money, but its the idea that I don't need that much more anyways).