Semester 1 Chatter Thread (2006) (1 Viewer)

[transcendent]

Re: Semester 1 Chatter

i don't get why people don't like her.

 

[c_james]

Re: Semester 1 Chatter

Yeahhhhh, 90 for my philosophy essay. Too bad the exam is worth 60% and doesn't contain anything that even remotely relates to my essay.

 

[withoutaface]

Re: Semester 1 Chatter

I just wrote a 1200 word letter to Honi that's not going to get published, and need sleep.

On the upside I think I passed graph theory quiz.

 

[Wolfowitz]

Re: Semester 1 Chatter

On another note, Tom fucked up at Theatresports today. Badly. But if he's going to learn a lot from trying to lay his testes across scenes and dominating, yeah? The problem with that is that you carry the whole success of the skit upon yourself...and that never works.

I video'd a bit of his efforts but I'll keep that for myself.
It'd be cruel to post it.
Plus, I've not finished touching myself over the vid.

 

[withoutaface]

Re: Semester 1 Chatter

Dear Honi,

Week 12's edition has been by far the worst you've produced this year. The amount of socialist content compared to previous weeks has skyrocketed (which is saying something given its usual prominence in your newspaper), and along with it have the vast inconsistencies that inevitably accompany it. I can only hope to cover a few of the most major points with said issue, and will mostly be focussing on your political economy feature because that was the prime culprit, but first I'll point out a few things:

1. If it takes four people, all of whom (to the best of my knowledge) do subjects where writing long essays is the norm, to collaborate in order to produce a 500 word article, I have great pity on them for the marks they'll receive for their 125 word essays in political economy, law, or whatever else it is you people do.
2. Your article 'Keep on Pushing' infuriated me. The assertion that "[followers] of Libertarianism…were anti-capitalist" represents a gross misuse of the term, and just because a philosophy supports social freedom does not mean it supports freedom in other spheres, and Marxism a disgusting ideology that perverts freedom in the economic sphere to the point where it is non-existent. Libertarians support freedom in all spheres of society, and are thus in favour of both social and economic liberalism.

Now, on to your political economy feature.



The first page asserts that disciplines which analyse society are to be valued. I'd like to posit that only disciplines which analyse society accurately are to be valued, and I don't think anyone would disagree with that. Presuming a discipline does such a thing, it will then allow corporations to accurately forecast the changing environment in which they operate, and will thus lead to well paying jobs. Political economy as it stands is not profitable precisely because it fails to accurately predict people, and as such there is no reason for it to be continued to be offered at this university, unless students are willing to fully fund it themselves in order to learn an inaccurate system of values which contributes nothing to society.



The article then asserts that the economy doesn't know best because economic power is distributed unevenly. The power in a laissez faire system is far more subtle than that, and is derived from a bottom down system where consumers make demands at the bottom, and these demands filter through to those at the top who must either bow to the consumers' needs, or go out of business. Compare this to a socialist system where one central government body controls the means of production. Even supposing that such a system were both democratic and conducive to free speech (a rather large assumption if the press is owned by the state), the people only get to decide once every 'x' number of years who they want to wield the power, and even then they only get to vote on what is essentially a block package, rather than having the 'pick and mix' style of the free market where the power in each industrial sector is decided individually through a constant process of supply and demand.



Social values correspond to profitability because people choose which products they purchase based on what their values are at the time, and as such claims that orthodox economics ignores such values are entirely fallacious, and probably based on the misapprehension that in order to model the market we must derive the works of Mozart from a mathematical equation.



The next statement that "Movements that challenge the status quo are silenced" clearly fails to take into account the effects of a state owned media, and then this is reinforced by the nonsensical statement from the Herd, who have obviously constructed an 'economic big brother' to explain why nobody wants to hear their crap music.



Next I see a textbook example of circular logic, where you pull out of thin air the proposition that government investment in education is good and then proceed to conclude that removal of funding is bad.



Following this I see the quotation that has been highlighted, and I'd like to ask Mr Skellern if he was running a corporation with $90 million profit whether he'd pay people to dig holes and fill them in again, because from the way he's constructed this paragraph I'm thinking the answer would be an enthusiastic yes.



Jeremy continues to speak of the social value of political economy, ignoring that perhaps there are too many universities offering the discipline now and that the same effect can be achieved by less universities which will inevitably attract the students interested in ECOP.



The final box informing me that my faculty could be under attack soon doesn't concern me in the least, because personally I wouldn't want to be stuck in a major that I couldn't find employment with anyway.



The next two pages tell me that apparently ECOP tears into all schools equally, but surprisingly the only places I see actual criticism printed are in the orthodox and Keynesian sections, with significantly less in the latter. It would seem that the subject tears into schools on a decreasing scale based on how communist they are, perhaps an understandable bias given Stilwell's heavy involvement with the Greens.



The essence of the monopoly on ideas article is that there needs to be two competing schools of economics in order for there to be competition, though I'd counter that there only needs to be competition within the economic school itself, where what is proven to work by empirical evidence will be taught, and if a new idea comes along it will be assessed on its merits and adapted into the curriculum if it offers new insight into economic behaviour.



Reading through the "What's left?" article I see continuous misunderstanding of the concept of power in the workplace and I'll posit to Kristie a few questions:

1. Would you make $18 an hour selling lemonade in the street? Should the employer not take at least a portion of the difference between what you'd make doing that, and what you turn over working for them and reward themselves for the risks they've taken in creating one of the top two department store chains in Australia?
2. What is quitting your job, if not firing your boss? Both actions are withdrawing from a contract under pre-agreed terms and leaving the fired party at a disadvantage.
3. Would you support a move to a complete full fee system if it eliminated the discrimination against HECS students and stopped the closure of the political economy faculty?



As much as I'd like to tear into the SRC executive about the contents of their pages, I fear I've already done the work of eight people, and to ask for any more room in your publication would just be greedy, so I'll leave it here, because I know you're not going to publish this anyway.



Much love,

Justin Simon

Engineering/Science II

.

 

[Generator]

Re: Semester 1 Chatter

You're a poster child for the HR Nicholls Society, Waf.

 

[Silver Persian]

Re: Semester 1 Chatter

I am here to defend the sexy political economy :<

1) Neoclassical economics isn't necessarily valued because it represents the economy accurately. Corporations have a vested interest in minimising government intervention in the economy to provide them with a greater freedom of action, and governments are increasingly following their lead. These businesses then only hire 'economists' (aka people who know neoclassical/keynesian economics) because these individuals will think in a way that is beneficial to them. Thus, when people are considering what courses to pick and they have a choice between eco and politcal eco, they will choose eco because they aren't going to get a job w/ pe. This doesn't mean, however, that pe isn't valuable in understanding the economy, it just means that most institutions that employ people prefer conventional economics. Saying that because pe is unprofitable it is academically irrelevent =/= good.

2)Economic power is distributed unevenly. If I have a high income, I can have a greater influence over what products are demanded. Businesses, seeing this demand, will pander to my middle class consumerism because of its profitability while ignoring the lower classes who would achieve greater utility from having their needs met. Also, its not true to see consumer sovereignty in such an atomistic manner - consumer demand is shaped significantly by the advertising of corporations, and often, because there is no 'perfect competition' in the economy, consumers cannot effectively convey their preferences to businesses because of the market power that large businesses possess to quash new competition before they can become popular.

3) To my knowledge, the PE textbook doesn't advocate Stalinesque control of the economy at any point. It does present this model, but it is very clear about its deficiences. Also, Marxist theory says that the government will dissolve after the proletariat revolution - Stalin's russia really wasn't anything to do with Marxism. I personally don't agree with some of what Marx says, but I think many of his ideas were relevant. The power that economic structures have in shaping how we think, for instance (see point 1)

4) I agree with you that PE is probably slanted against neo economics - but I think this is understandable when neo economics parades itself as unquestioned truth in the economics course, when in actuality there is so much literature positing its inadequacies. If dissident schools of economic thought are not taught at university, there is a very good chance that they will become obsolete, not because they are irrelevant, but because of inertia. I studied economics at high school, and it took me a long time to change my way of thinking so I could understand Marxist/Institutionalist approaches. This was not because these schools are necessarily deficient, but because my brain was so used to thinking in a neo/Keynesian way. If we eliminate these schools of thought, we reduce the available acadmic arsenal that can be used to understand capitalsim - and history has shown that, over time, the most useful school of economic thought shifts.

5) We have 5% unemployment, which means that individuals have trouble finding jobs. Many don't have the option to quit when they are supporting themselves/their families - but that doesn't legitimise business decisions to remove benefits. (Also, before anybody replies to this, lowering wages doesnt create jobs or lift productivity, it boosts profitability).

6) Frank Stilwell is sexc. There is not other lecture where I so consistently cum in my pants.

 

[Rafy]

Re: Semester 1 Chatter

How many people recieved an email from some student with the subject "John Howard Coming To Sydney Uni THIS MONDAY!"?

It seems somebody abused an email list to send out unsolicted political materials. I know of 4 others who recieved it as well.

I replied asking how my email was obtained. No answer as of yet.

If they have indeed abused an email list, surely some sort of sanction should apply to the person in question?.

 

[Generator]

Re: Semester 1 Chatter

I'm still to receive a response, too.

Personally, I would actually support a peaceful and sensible protest, but I too would like to know how the sender came across my email address.

 

[ujuphleg]

Re: Semester 1 Chatter

I got that e-mail too, but that was ok, because I was on the mailing lists to which it was sent.

What I had a problem with was the suggestion that we should egg him. My e-mail stated:

Is it really conducive to ask people to egg lil' Johnny Coward and thus confirm his rants about us being untamed hooligans?

to which the socialist replied:

Is it really useful to sit on our arses and discuss the finer points of
how Howard is dismantling our unions and higher education while he does it?

and I replied with:

Don't miscontrue what I said. Protesting is an excellent way to express our rage and discontent and I am no happier than you about Howards destruction of unions and higher education. Of course it isn't useful to sit on our arses, and we should make every effort to make our stupid government see sense.

But I was just commenting that encouraging people to egg him probably wasn't so useful to our cause.

You don't have to accept what I said, it was just a comment.

I'll write a reply to Justin's Honi letter over the course of the day. You were right about one thing, I can't see them publishing that.

 

[hiphophooray123]

Re: Semester 1 Chatter

yes i got that fucking e-mail and i want my god damn reply

my reply:

I would appreciate it if you would never send me socialist propaganda like this again.

Yours sincerely

Chris Singh

The guy was trying to make john howard sound like some sort of evil dictator, 'he condones the torture that mr habib recieved, therefore, john howard supports the evil opression of all human rights' what the fuck kind of stupid faggot logic is that.


the email:

john howard is coming to sydney uni. this monday!

He has been in power for 10 years. His legacy includes

-Violating human rights through mandatory detention at condoning the torture of australian citizens Habib and Hicks at guantanamo bay
-The highest inequality in decades
-Raising the Price of Education so now access to education is dominated by money
-Killing countless innocent people in iraq, for a war that has never been justified to the public.
-the criminalisation of trade union entry into workplaces
-the criminalisation of union strikes
-the end of universal student representation, and universal access to oncampus welfare and childcare services
-universities run like business's, faculty closures, economic rationalisation of education
-work"choices"
-Politics based on fear.

this monday Howard will be at the mallet street campus at 8.30. meet at 7.30am at sydney uni, (wentworth building bottom level) or organise your own group to converge on mallet street campus at 8.30am (friends, union, tutorial class, club, society etc etc!)

Students only found out he is coming Today, so it is essential we all spread the word! Talk about it while having coffee, while in the library, whilst in your class, whilst doing the washing up, whilst at a red light, tell the person in the car next to you. SPREAD THE WORD!

 

[Skeeta]

Re: Semester 1 Chatter

exsqueeze me mr waf

are you in engineering?

and like are you going to this trivia night on thursday?

 

[Wolfowitz]

Re: Semester 1 Chatter

exsqueeze me mr waf

are you in engineering?

and like are you going to this trivia night on thursday?

who isn't?
I'm going with DAMAGE INC/FUCK_LIBERALS/GOOD_SIR_LANCELOT.
It will be sexy time.

 

[hiphophooray123]

Re: Semester 1 Chatter

i didnt know u did engeneering james

should i come to said trivia night, will der b teh food and will it b 3

 

[Wolfowitz]

Re: Semester 1 Chatter

Sif engineering.
Isn't it just a night @ hermans?
It's advertised at wolfowitz-stenholme.

 

[Skeeta]

Re: Semester 1 Chatter

the rumours are 6.30 at wentworth?

which means fuck all to me coz i have no fucking idea where that is

 

[hiphophooray123]

Re: Semester 1 Chatter

skeeta are you going tell me if you are coz i finish at 5 on thurs so i can stick around

 

[Wolfowitz]

Re: Semester 1 Chatter

wentworth is the uni of syd building on city road.
but i think it's at the bar there/.
bring some hot firends and we can make hot bttlove

\<2 wolfowz

 

[KeypadSDM]

Re: Semester 1 Chatter

On another note, Tom fucked up at Theatresports today. Badly. But if he's going to learn a lot from trying to lay his testes across scenes and dominating, yeah? The problem with that is that you carry the whole success of the skit upon yourself...and that never works.

I video'd a bit of his efforts but I'll keep that for myself.
It'd be cruel to post it.
Plus, I've not finished touching myself over the vid.

You bastard. It's the first time I played with that team. Moreover, it's only the 4th time I've played. But yeah, if I don't throw myself on stage I'm not going to learn.

 

[Skeeta]

Re: Semester 1 Chatter

guys parties off


not going (i dont think)