Our reason for importance of separate public from private authority is based on a particular school of thoughts; Marxism explanation of the world. Our central theme; according to Marxist ideologies, is the importance of separation of public and private authority is essential to the explanation of the inequality in the economy life of the modern world.

The three major points separation of public/private authority would help explain economic inequality is firstly the issue of who owns the private sector and who is in control of the private sector authority. The second point is the traditional differences between public state sector and economic interest versus comparison with the private sectors interest. The third point is according to Marxist interpretation what the trend of these two different interest sectors is leading into in the future. Afterward their will be a critique and interpretation of these trend along with alternative options and concluding thoughts.

We will now begin to discuss the issue of who is in charge of private authority according to Marxist analysis and reason of relevance to be put in separate category from the public system. Separate category needed between public and private authority is important in Marxism is because different interest groups are in charge of the two systems. For now, we will ignore the public system.

According to socialism, private authority is totally controlled by the elite rich few in 100% and they are a very small numerically group in any society on the planet. The reason being in private authority such as TNC, this small group always owns the owner of the means of production and is always not needing a public consensus by the people who are without any power in the decisions making.

Also relevantly, the fruits and reward of private authority is always benefiting the few. As well as importantly, it is important to separate the public from the private sector to Marx is because these two systems have autonomous power from each other. From a socialist perspective, the private authority such as TNC can make decisions without approval or serious consultation from the public sector authority. A common sense knowledge example would be wages and employment in TNC. TNC can hire people and paid wages that are below or very different from the public sector without consulting public sector authority.

Also important to Marx for the separation of public and private sector authority is because the working conditions of the employees in these two sector of authority is very different. An example using private sector authority is their ability to set up factories which paid zero wages in developing world, which is not allowed in the public sector authority economy.

In last word, the separation of public from private authority is important in Marx is because is the interests of these groups and their purpose and goals of achievement is very different. They are in socialist perspectives different end of the political spectrum in civil society's vision of economy.

We will now begin the second subtopic of who is really in charge of private sector authority/ differences with public, the relevant importance for being a separated category. Marxist believe public sector authority should be separated from private reason being unlike the private sector, the state economic system is not totally controlled by the rich elite few. At least in the west, the public authority is being contested by unions, socialist election candidates against the elite few, meaning to the very least regular citizens and the poor have some pockets of control and influences of the system. There are critique of this limited equality and there are societies whereby the elite rich few have no control over the pubic or private economy like China, but for now we will discard non-western system until the last section subgroup of critique.

Marx sees separation of pubic sector form private sector as important because of also the different interest group of public authority. Unlike the private corporations, the shareholders of the public economy authority are voters, who are numerically large and numerous. While the elite few can from parties and tries to win governments, there is no 100% they will on the question of always capturing majority seats party.

As in the last section I mention the concepts of ownership of means of production, and unlike the private sector economy the elite few does not totally own the state economy, because the tax revenue does not only come from the employers or shareholders of companies.

In this section, we discuss the future trend of the public/private relations in the economy through Marx's perspectives. In the beginning of the central point we assert understanding separation of public/private is essential to explanation of inequality in Marx's system. According to most left leaning traditional views the future will be more push of less state control and less public sector as profits are accumulative, we can see that now only because have go through the previous sections of the different interests in playa in the two sectors.

In is important to discusses future trend in Marx terms, because for Marx there is only one path; public ownership, all other parts of mixed economy and compromise choice will eventually through long time span be converted to ownership by a few extreme rich people. Marxist's perspectives on mixed economy and compromise are essential to understand the future trends and need to separate public/private sector. The essential general knowledge point all socialist studies show is the compromise or the middle way out is an illusion. When the reader read the previous sections there are sometimes thoughts of since the public exists and is not totally control by private firms maybe that will be an enough check on the system. The fact of the matter is through Marx lenses, the owners always look for more, in simple terms it means it will not be enough to only wanting partial control. That is why Marx's perspectives on differential to inequality understanding of the system.

In this particular final part before conclusion we offer an opinion and alternative choices and routes public/private sector relations the west can take in achieving equality and fairer sharing of the power. We will offer references to the China's system of Marx structure of private/public relations in economy. As we have discusses in previous sections the current system's interested stakeholders is not working and Marxist prediction is the situation will only worsen and inequality will gradually also increases. The question than becomes what are the alternatives to the current choices. There is a very obvious choice, however unlikely it is to happen, to launch a civil revolt against system similar to soviet China.

China is example of Marxist perspectives state whereby public/private interest is working fine and the economy is booming. It is a system whereby the public sector is dominates the economy without control or vast anger form previous interests. The problem of finding a solution to western state and society's inequality through Marxist lenses is not so much the mechanism that's not working; it is the mindset of the citizens and members of the west's circles. It is a common problem among Marxist's lenses, it is easy to apply re-distribution to poverty stricken societies, but it is much harder to apply re-distribution to middle class and societies that are traditionally well off. The problem in my view is how to peach to people who do not come from heart land regions.

In this last section, we will conclude the whole essay with final thoughts. In my version of Marxist view separation of private/public authority in the economy is the backbone to knowledge of who is in really benefit ting in the system. For Marx in my view, the audience will only come to the conclusion of who causes the increasing and worsening inequality within the western societies only after separating the interest of the whole systems. In is acknowledge the private corporations owners are the burning cause of inequality now and in the future, only worsening. Than discusses to take discussion to offer options that are alternatives in nature and critique as well as problems with re-distributions.

In last word, there is consensus in my view of Marxism that the system in the west is broken; however the consensus in how to fix the system is not so united or large consensus makeup already. As well, there are significant road blocks to make inroads. I can only said in last word, the expert will just have to wait and watch until something significant is changed in the western economy.

Most of the standard questions for potential teachers are what kind of teaching method you have. If you have had some training refer to that, otherwise you can explain your approach as integrated, combining a number of skills that you think the employer would like to hear. Today the emphasis is on conversation so you may throw in key words relating to that like discussions, presentations and debates.

If you get asked why you are working at several language schools you might like to ignore the question but it allows the employer to know whether you are the type to stick through a contract or not. That question has been a source of irritation for me, as most language places do not offer a substantial amount of hours to create a balanced income Even if a set income was established, the teacher might just like to juggle locations so that he can accept contracts at better pay. Then there are proprietary schools, which forbid you to teach anywhere else, and I would avoid those. Anyway just be honest about the fact that you cannot rely on one school especially if it can only offer morning work.

If asked what you level preferences are, if you prefer all levels say so. It gives you a better chance at finding work. My experience is that it is less stressful working with people who already have acquired basis for the language.