|
lmao. Well I do agree, this is hilarious Anyway you can't both defund education and want more money for education. I mean, I thought you couldn't, but here we are.
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 14:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 01:57 |
|
|
The English word for "tax" is "tax" which is the same stem as "tact" and "tactile" and so by that logic otakus (who have no tact and will never touch another human) should be tax-exempt. Woop woop woop.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 15:14
|
|
|
I've seen a lot of dumb poo poo in my years, but an argument from etymology is actually kinda novel in its idiocy so I can't bash it too hard.Friendly Humour posted:What the gently caress is STEM It's what people who study economics really desperately want to be part of.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 15:30
|
|
|
Friendly Humour posted:lmao. Well I do agree, this is hilarious yeah, it kinda fits the reduce spending to grow the economy mindset some people have
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 15:34
|
|
|
Goa Tse-tung posted:yeah, it kinda fits the reduce spending to grow the economy mindset some people have Hey look the starnerds told me the universe will one day expand so big it'll collapse in on itself so clearly if we shrink budgets small enough they'll spontaneously explode into giant ones. Why no I never did well in Physics how could you tell.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 15:37
|
|
|
Friendly Humour posted:What the gently caress is STEM An acronym designed by techbros and wisdomless science-husks that paved the way for the death of western culture. Tesseraction posted:Hey look the starnerds told me the universe will one day expand so big it'll collapse in on itself so clearly if we shrink budgets small enough they'll spontaneously explode into giant ones. That outlook was way too optimistic because something could come from that big crunch. So now the latest theory is everything will expand forever until even protons are ripped apart and we reach the heat death of the universe. This is much more pleasing to the science-ghoul because it is miserable and without beauty. Regarde Aduck fucked around with this message at 16:22 on Jan 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 16:19
|
|
|
Regarde Aduck posted:That outlook was way too optimistic because something could come from that big crunch. So now the latest theory is everything will expand forever until even protons are ripped apart and we reach the heat death of the universe. This is much more pleasing to the science-ghoul because it is miserable and without beauty. Well our budget is right hosed then innit.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 16:29
|
|
|
Regarde Aduck posted:An acronym designed by techbros and wisdomless science-husks that paved the way for the death of western culture. If you don't find 'spacetime itself conspiring to rip the very fabric of matter apart' a beautiful and inspiring concept after 2016, I don't know what to tell you.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 18:29
|
|
|
It's weird that people keep arguing whether tuition fees benefit the middle class when there is no such thing as the middle class. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 18:58
|
|
|
DarkCrawler posted:See, now when you are actually giving a straight answer we get just how butt-gently caress insane your position is!  " (they also like Trump and Brexit)quote:Your position is supported by zero poor people. This was demonstrated through the multiple links I posted which you have ignored. quote:In relative terms, absolutely. Middle classes are not the only ones who don't have the same inherent advantages as the rich, the poor don't either. Your idiotic plan would leave them even more shafted then the middle class. quote:Doesn't matter, they are fees. They will leave poorer students worse off then the middle class students who will be worse off then the rich students who will not be bad off in any way or form. I like equality and fairness. You don't, you want the burden to fall disproportionately on anyone except the rich. Changing the method of payment does not affect the cost So UK students have the most debt? So what? The debt is manageable for 99% of them. Graduates earning less than 21000 do not repay any debt. No one repays more than 9% of income. quote:Average doesn't matter. I already explained to you that the way real world works is that some will be below average and some will be above average. Thus some will have a worse financial situation then the others. Thus they will be more burdened by a debt system. This is the literal opposite of equality. And stop with this "some are poor" stuff. When it comes to graduates, very few are poor. This is just a fact, stop trying to weasel around it by continually mentioning access to education for poor people (which you yourself admit won't be affected). University education correlates extremely strongly with income. Most loan based systems allow the poor to avoid paying (either all, or some of the debt). Poor people do not benefit at all from a tax based system at all. In terms of education, it's neutral. In terms of other social spending, they can now receive more that the government has freed up funds. quote:For what must be the tenth time, access to education is irrelevant to the argument here. We are talking about the financial situation of the students during and after their education. quote:Oh that's cool I guess all the dozens of links I have posted about the perspective of poor people who are facing a debt-based system on both of the countries (US/UK) that you hold as exemplars, is crying. quote:That's why it makes a great place to spend our tax money on. quote:Because education, including higher education, is a right, not an investment. Sorry, but this is the prevailing opinion in both Finland and among poor people. Again, something demonstrated multiple times by multiple sources. quote:Doesn't matter. If there are poor students, there are poor students. quote:Again, as demonstrated, the government will have to spend the same or more money just to get the poor and middle classes up there with the rich, so this is just a straight up lie or you are imagining a fantasy system that does not exist in reality. quote:Wow, I wonder why the government ends up losing even more taxpayer money in these sorts of systems. And as we all know, poor people don't pay taxes in these countries in the slightest, right? Poor people paying taxes makes this even better. Poor people (less educated than wealthy people) pay taxes to fund education for (mainly) wealthy people. Great way to make your point. Also for the last time, changing the composition of who pays does not affect total cost. Thinking it does is just pure retardation. You want to know why education costs more in the US/UK? Maybe it's because their top universities are better than ours. Maybe it's because of relative differences in price levels/salaries. Maybe it's because their universities are more focused on different areas (which might have higher costs)? Who the gently caress knows? What's the link here between method of payment and cost, other than pure correlation (which I haven't even bothered to verify)? Does it matter that the ivy league universities in total spend twice as much money per year as Finnish research universities? quote:No, I think education is an universal right to everyone regardless of how much money their parents have. You think it is an investment where the poor and middle classes have to accept far more risk then those with wealthy parents. The bottom line, and I'm going stop respond in such detail from now on, is that you want to remove (mainly) middle class risk because you think it's unfair. I think it's unfair that we are spending money to remove (minimal) risk from the middle classes instead of spending that money directly on the poor. I also think that current student loan systems are very good at removing risk (see: capped repayments, poor people do not repay at all). Finally, it's worth noting that the same risks exist everywhere. Entrepreneurship? Poor people have less access to resources. Do we want to give every entrepreneur a (huge, because the education subsidy in Finland is worth about e100k per person) grant because rich people are better off than the poor? There are much much better ways to help the poor than by directing a subsidy to a minority of them. Again, give me one link or account from a poor person who supports your system over mine. You get how pathetic and impotent is that after repeated requests and mountains of text you are still completely incapable of doing that? quote:Tuition fees as explained many times are lovely for reasons unrelated to the structure of universities so I don't know what you are even talking about.  ing about it. Freeing up that money so it can be spent on people who actually need it is much better. Your "unfairness" argument is pathetic. Oh you poor thing, you're not from a rich family. Guess what? There are 6.5 billion people in the world who are worse off than you. We have limited resources. Education is largely a very positive thing (both personally and financially and socially) for people that carries quite a minor risk (especially if loans are designed properly). Charging people doesn't seem to deter people much. Your concern is that you won't be able to get a mortgage at 30 if you had to take on education debt. I think it's completely unfair that society chooses to prioritize that concern over many others. I see your concern as middle class whining. Finally, another Economist article: http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21645241-cutting-tuition-fees-labours-least-progressive-idea-class-war quote:The system that has emerged from more than a decade of rows over fees is complex but progressive—that is, it redistributes from rich to poor. Graduates in England can borrow from the government to pay for fees and living costs, but must only repay 9% of their earnings over £21,000 (much as if they were paying an additional income tax). In 2012—amid noisy student protests—the government raised the cap on fees from £3,300 to £9,000. It also boosted the repayment threshold—from £15,000—bringing down graduates’ monthly bills. The change was costly for students on average, but also made the system much more redistributive. Debts are written off after 30 years, so whereas poor graduates benefit from lower monthly payments, they do not end up paying the higher fee. As a result, the true cost of university depends more on lifetime earnings than on the fee (which explains why even some obscure universities set prices high). Lower fees would help only the successful; low earners would simply have less debt written off. By one estimate, Mr Miliband’s policy will benefit only those with a starting salary of at least £35,000 followed by lots of pay rises. Tesseraction posted:Hey look the starnerds told me the universe will one day expand so big it'll collapse in on itself so clearly if we shrink budgets small enough they'll spontaneously explode into giant ones. Dumb economists don't know much about the economics of education or opportunity costs 
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 19:32
|
|
|
Please stop making posts that make my eyes bleed just looking at them. Please format your posts in a readable manner. Please...
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 19:49
|
|
|
Geriatric Pirate posted:Seriously I can't believe how many times I need to repeat "opportunity cost". I want the middle classes and the rich to pay. Yep. Make them pay through taxes; once they're making money. Don't use tuition as a form of preemptive tax on the principle of "they're probably going to earn a lot of money thanks to the diploma they'll probably get, so let's make them pay right now instead of later" because that's completely loving stupid.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 21:08
|
|
|
"But what if their families are alread-" Yes, wealth taxes too.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 22:05
|
|
|
I can't wait to work in the forced labour STEM camps of the future.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 22:35
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:Yep. Make them pay through taxes; once they're making money. Don't use tuition as a form of preemptive tax on the principle of "they're probably going to earn a lot of money thanks to the diploma they'll probably get, so let's make them pay right now instead of later" because that's completely loving stupid. They will/do pay taxes. Do you want those taxes to be spent on the future middle class or on the poor? "But the rich pay more taxes" . It's funny how that all of a sudden becomes a valid argument for education and you can completely ignore the distributional effects on the spending side, but if we were to talk about government-run yacht clubs, corporate subsidies, or something similar it would be unacceptable. Then you make some argument about how education has social benefits (it does) like corporate investment doesn't or that these benefits couldn't be realized without government spending. I wonder how much is down to the "middle class student/recent graduate" status of most people in this thread.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 23:43
|
|
|
Geriatric Pirate posted:I wonder how much is down to the "middle class student/recent graduate" status of most people in this thread.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 23:49
|
|
|
Dawncloack posted:You just dropped a "you will understand when you are old". With your username. Priceless. It was meant to be "FYGM" not "you young ones just don't get it"
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 00:04
|
|
|
Geriatric Pirate posted:They will/do pay taxes. Do you want those taxes to be spent on the future middle class or on the poor? The point is that the "market" in terms of people paying for their own education doesn't capture the social benefits adequately (because they can only consider the personal benefit in that equation). To put it more simply for you; the educational spending you're deriding as having bad "distributional effects" for poor people is exactly the spending that educated the midwife that helped bring them in to this world. The social workers that ensure children don't disappear off the radar. The teachers that provided their basic education. The nurses and doctors that treat them when they're sick or injured. Yacht clubs don't provide a social benefit. Employing people to make/run/work on toys for the rich has a negative externality in terms of wasted labour that could be contributing to the social good. You have a bizarre weird view on government spending as a closed system as opposed to the economy as a whole. Government is just a part of the social and economic system. Opportunity cost is a social decision driven by politics. loving hell you're an idiot and you should gently caress off to a libertarian paradise where there must be no poor because the markets have solved all the problems.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 00:05
|
|
|
Geriatric Pirate posted:I wonder how much is down to the "middle class student/recent graduate" status of most people in this thread. gently caress you and gently caress off. I inherited a paperweight from my grandfather. Inside it was a red feather, and the words "tunne vastuu isänmaastasi". Know the responsibility for your fatherland.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 00:23
|
|
|
Friendly Humour posted:gently caress you and gently caress off. "Make Finland Great For-once"
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 00:27
|
|
|
How likely is the AfD likely to win
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 00:29
|
|
|
It's made of hard plastic and it's got REALLY sharp edges.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 00:30
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 00:32
|
|
|
Geriatric Pirate posted:They will/do pay taxes. Do you want those taxes to be spent on the future middle class or on the poor? You are incredibly dense. In the real world, it is actually possible for a state to fund more than one thing at a time. I know, I know, this contradicts that Holy Austerity Dogma that says that states should fund exactly zero things, but yeah, reality doesn't work like Austerians believe it does. Just stop trying to push the false and stupid idea that ensuring free (or at least, cheap) education means that the poor will have to starve. That's not true, and never will be. More importantly, making higher education accessible is how you can give the poor some upward social mobility. Unless you have some conservationist view of poverty and want paupers to remain paupers forever and ever, like they're an endangered species and it's important to prevent them from mutating into the middle class.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 00:40
|
|
|
LeoMarr posted:How likely is the AfD likely to win Very unlikely. They've been hovering around 10-15% for ages and don't seem to be able get much more than that. Also you need to a coalition to govern in Germany and no old party wants to touch the poop, at least in the next few years.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 00:50
|
|
|
Lord of the Llamas posted:The point is that the "market" in terms of people paying for their own education doesn't capture the social benefits adequately (because they can only consider the personal benefit in that equation). quote:Yacht clubs don't provide a social benefit. Employing people to make/run/work on toys for the rich has a negative externality in terms of wasted labour that could be contributing to the social good. Here's a thought experiment for you: Try replacing "education" in your arguments with "investment by entrepreneurs" and try to tell me why the two are different. If it comes down to some sort of values argument or education being a right, just admit that your argument isn't logical and is driven by your own personal preference. Which in turn are probably shaped by your own upbringing and current status as a middle class student or former student.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 00:50
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:You are incredibly dense. I agree completely that accessible higher education is a gateway for the poor to get rich. Unfortunately for you, that has nothing to do with tuition fees, which are almost completely unrelated to access.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 00:56
|
|
|
Shut the gently caress up.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 01:24
|
|
|
Geriatric Pirate posted:every euro spent on the middle class is a euro not spent on the poor. Repeating lies doesn't make them true. Find me an instance of a government that had decreased funding for schools in order to increase funding for social programs; that never happened. What happens is that they cut funding for schools and for social programs at the same time, in order to give the rich a tax cut.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 01:30
|
|
|
Geriatric Pirate posted:I've addressed this in almost every post I've made. The only person who seems to have even acknowledged it is DarkCrawler. For the millionth time: Tuition fees don't make nurses disappear. They don't make teachers disappear. I don't know how many times I need to repeat it. Look around the world. I didn't realize that the UK, Canada and US were no longer educating nurses. Nor did I realize that Finland, where education is "free", was educating enough nurses. If a over half of US high school graduates are willing to pay for their education, I'm not too worried about this. LOL You do realise, for example, there's currently a huge nursing shortage in the UK? And the changes to the education system, i.e. scrapping bursaries and charging high tuition, means that there aren't anywhere near enough training. loving hell you're ignorant of reality. Even in the private sector; I work in a high tech infrastructure industry where we can't get enough very well educated people and the contributions people can make far outweigh what they're paid personally. Your retarded thought experiment assumes that little/some social good is the same as a lot/essential social good.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 01:41
|
|
|
Lord of the Llamas posted:LOL In Finland (free education) we also have a shortage of nurses. Odd, they should be flocking to study nursing because there are no tuition fees. Ditto for high tech workers. Could it possibly be that those are two sectors with high demand for employment regardless? And lol at your attempt to avoid the issue. Investment is an essential social good that provides a lot of benefits. Your job didn't pop up out of nowhere. Someone invested to set up those tech infrastructure companies. The food you eat doesn't come from the sky, some farmer invested in his farm to provide it for you. Trying to argue that investment has limited social benefits has to be the funniest way to try to avoid having to come to terms that your position is illogical. So let's try this again: Why should we subsidize your education as opposed to the investment your employer made to provide you a job? It can't be from the revenue side - in your world, rich people just pay for everything. It's probably not related to the social benefits - jobs and goods provided are arguably as or more important than your education.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 02:10
|
|
|
Geriatric Pirate being Finnish gives so much context to his argument. He has fully internalized Finnish monetary self-flagellation and now that almost every economics professor in Scandinavia is coming out against it he's having an identity crisis.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 08:44
|
|
|
He's finnish? I thought Finns were cool. (Not the True Finns though). I got a third grade joke about Finns. What do you call a Finn who plays with dolls? A dolphin
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 08:47
|
|
|
Well he did say "In Finland (free education) we" which is one hell of a misleading sentence if he isn't at least living in Finland. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 08:50
|
|
|
This thread would be vastly improved if people bothered to read redtext avatars.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 11:39
|
|
|
So what about the Saracen invasion
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 11:52
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:So what about the Saracen invasion 
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 12:21
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:2. For our conversation, here's the money shot: This was an interesting read, thx for that. I think Piketty is off target wrt this. If you measure education by looking at literacy, you mainly measure whether a population is protestant or not, at least in 1800. Scotland and (Protestant) Germany had a literacy comparable to the US around 1800 yet were much poorer. So there must be more to US productivity than education. Perhaps having an abundance of land and other ressources compared to an overpopulated (by 1800s standards) Europe might play a role, especially as most people were employed in the agricultural sector and had to work on inferior land for a lack of alternatives. Also, the US were liberal when Europe was still in the clutches of reactionaries. His claim that a recent study named an Italian lack of investment into education as a reason is not wrong. But he conveniently fails to mention that while the study cites a low investment (public *and* private) as one reason, it also adds a host of other factors. Namely a lack of reforms to liberalize the service markets and being too national in scope in a globalized world.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 12:28
|
|
|
Even though his proposed solutions were nuts, GP was right about two things: That free education is more of a subsidy to the middle class than a method of social mobility, and that you in fact can shuffle money without things starting to cost more. Poor people need free education. Middle class people need affordable education. Rich people don't give a gently caress about the price, the investment is worth it to them. You could easily make education paid for by a proportional tax paid by people who are currently benefiting from that education. The savings could be used identify and alleviate the problems that are currently preventing poor people from accessing that free education. Off the top of my head: support for studying for the entrance exams, travel to the exams, cost of moving near the university. Also social work during primary and secondary education to identify individuals who could use some help at home so they could concentrate on learning. Even though alot of that stuff already exists in theory, the austerity push has been wrecking it, especially the services and subsidies that aren't required by law.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 15:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 01:57 |
|
|
https://www.ft.com/content/1f7c6746-db75-11e6-9d7c-be108f1c1dcequote:Donald Trump has taken his strongest swipe yet at the EU, labelling it “a vehicle for Germany” and predicting that other countries will follow Britain in leaving the bloc.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 00:26
|
|
