Schools shouldn't be treated as these magical places where you're put in at some age and over a decade later you emerge a complete human being. You have parents and you spend more time at home than at school for a reason: you're supposed to learn from your parents.
A school can potentially give you a degree of financial literacy instruction. Your parents should be the ones paying your allowance money and driving you to the bank to get your first checking account. A school can teach you how to cook something. Your parents should be the ones eating your food and helping you cook it better. A school can show you some level of DIY. Your parents should directly benefit from teaching you how to fix the sink when it gets clogged. A school can tell you what kinds of careers exist. Your parents should love you enough to tell you that either your career ambitions or your financial expectations need to change. A school can tell you how to build a resume. Your parents should be the ones driving you to your job interview and to your job until you buy your first car. A school can give you a failing grade when you do poorly on a test. Your parents should be able to make you face the real, in-the-moment consequences of doing something wrong.
Expecting a school, public or private, to teach you everything you need to know is a grave mistake. You need people in your corner who are taking an active part in raising you all the way to adulthood and beyond. If you have kids yourself, that goes for them as well. If you aren't there for your children, to teach them the things that schools don't teach because they can't mass produce the lessons to nearly the same quality that you can give them, they'll blame you and the school for having failed them. And they'd be right to lay the blame at your feet.
Here's one, from what does money derive its value?
I mean, its the most important thing in our society. You'd think that they would make sure it was really hammered home.
Now, you'll be told that it has value simply because we believe it does which isn't untrue. Theyll say, you know, it's like gold that doesn't actually hold any value. We just believe it really hard.
The problem is, we value that gold is shiny, imperishable and we can make pretty things out of it. We didn't have a big meeting and just randomly decide that gold would be valuable.
Another problem is that money is an iou. Except its, apparently, an iou that isn't own to anyone and doesn't have to be repaid, making it fall short of the criteria for it being an iou.
Tbf our economists dont really need to think about that, as, due to how money is created and destroyed, the position nets off due to the debt being repaid, despite the above. Theres no need to consider the non hypothetical part.
What if the underlying asset was human labour? You know, like how cotton, sugar and steel used to be used as currency in Virginia, the west indies and Sheffield respectfully. Its just that we live in human labour farm and you're living capital. To me, considering modern monetary policy, its the only thing that makes sense.
Jessie what the fuck are you talking about
Oh, sorry, I WAS TALKING ABOUT MONEY.