The idea was simple. Here is its more concrete form:
- Hire a few teachers to spend some of their free time to work on a project to develop an ad hoc express course in pedagogy accompanied by learning material to give the person an understanding of the course the student (children and youth) is taking and for which they struggle to master.
- Teach courses and learning material to parents coming from economically poor situations, thereafter if they sufficiently pass the test, pay them to be support teachers for children and youth of a course the parent itself has mastered learning material about.
- The aims is to catch two flies in one smack, by targeting those sections of the population where there is poverty as well as a lack of "learning in focus" (a political slogan and often used phrase in Norway, meaning "lack of focus on educational values").
The ideological aspect of the idea is that Norway, as a hugely developed country (1st place on the Human Development Index! Can't flatter myself with it often enough
! ) and with a vastly developed social economy, has a few demographic challenges lying ahead of it in terms of ensuring an equal spread of the increase in income and welfare that lies ahead. First of all, the only societies that can sustain an economy more powerful than Norway's is an economy with a high-valued knowledge intensive workforce, the high-value raw materials (Thorium being our next in line) are not enough to sustain really high incomes (if we are to actually spend the income, if we just hoard money we can get big GDP but little benefit from the numerical value, like the effects of the financial industry in the US), that is, the unique value of each citizen must increase in order for the expenditures on welfare to be able to increase at an optimal speed.This trend will lead to a growing divide, one that is very real all over the world today, between a knowledge intensive class of citizens making more money and having easier access to jobs, and a comparatively badly paid workforce only able to get mundane jobs that require little or no real competence and with a diminishing number of available positions. To counter this divide, the lower classes of the uneducated and underpaid must be pushed up into the knowledge intensive class as best as possible, because the more people in the knowledge intensive class the more we can subsidize high wages in the lower classes with higher prices and the more we have which we can spend on the welfare system. The situation otherwise would be a situation where we would have to deplete the knowledge intensive workforce more and more of their money (A French 75% tax anyone?
), however, the money the knowledge intensive workforce makes is not sufficient to cover the expenses, first of all it depletes the purchasing power in the economy because some money goes into "money holes" (thereby decreasing the market supply ability as demand decrease, as well as the already existing supply inhibitor of less expertise), things that don't necessarily yield or yield proportionally little compared to healthy working highly valuable citizens (which is what welfare systems usually are about), as them having to pay it at that point means the social welfare programs work so inefficiently that they have not managed to solve or provide less costly solutions to problems down to our point of time, which in turn occurs because there's not enough expertise in society to increase efficiency and problem solving. The welfare bill is meant to increase because we want more welfare, but not because we want to spend more on existing problems but because we want it to be able to solve more things! We can only occur if it increases its efficiency (that's where problems relating to work usually comes in as we try to get more people into work), but it must increase as the economic wealth increases, or else you need more and more "feed-off" mechanisms where more and more people will feed off others.Basically, more expertise = more efficiency, more expertise = more value creation = more to spend on higher quality and more diverse welfare.
And who funded, trained and supported him and the Mujahideen and the Taliban in the first place?