| || |
Dactoria, it is not certain that any specific spending of more for education will net increase employment, or improve our economy. Budgeting more intelligently certainly can’t do our nation harm.
Certainly, it’s preferable that we accomplish upgrading at lesser expense. But the priority should be to achieve those improvements.
You incorrectly stated “education does not necessarily develop the economy in general. Rather it directs the economy in the preference of special interests”. Any net improvements of USA’s education or training practices have and will continue to be reflected by no less net improvements of our social and economic conditions.
Savings of expenditures at the cost of net educational quality is false economy.
I’m a proponent of a unilateral substantially market driven global trade policy as described within the Wikipedia article “Import Certificates”. Its entire direct net expenditures are passed on to USA purchasers of imported goods.
Its USA adoption would likely increase and never be a cause of decreasing USA’s gross domestic production’s reduction, (GDP) and numbers of jobs. (Trade deficits are a drag upon their nation’s GDPs and consequentially upon their numbers of jobs which in turn is a drag upon those wages’ purchasing powers).
It’s expected that the policy would be of greater benefit to manufacturing industries but the policy does not more or less favor agricultural or ranching products. Increasing the profitability of any industry promotes increased jobs, wages, methods, research, and development. There’s a symbiotic relationship between production and knowledge. As we experience methods and manipulations of tools and materials we learn more about them. We apply what we’ve leaned; we learn more by doing more.
Refer to Wikipedia’s “Import Certificates” article
USA goods could be more price competitive