The Official "Argue with waf" Thread (2 Viewers)

[ur_inner_child]

Waf certainly enjoys swinging his big thick free market stick.

Though I really am afraid of it being totally correct. It's hard not to fear the outcome of this, especially when he deconstructs my post. Quite personal, I feel.

Waf, how would I survive? How will the Opera House survive...

I also feel I'm not articulating what I truly want to say, I'm a bit stumbly with my words today

 

[wheredanton]

I was talking to this guy on the bus on the way to uni two weeks ago. He was a muslim, and we started talking about the charity. He said that Australia-as a society wasnt very charitable, so I asked him why he said that. And he said.. take you for example-He pointed to my 3 bags of shopping and said "Instead of buying all that excessive junk you could donate to charity".. and I said, but I don't feel like donating $100 to charity-I'm fine throwing in 10 bucks to world vision/oxfam stands once in a blue moon but I don't want to be donating $30/month and he said that was utterly selfish of me because he said I don't need another jacket for winter-"whats wrong with the one your wearing now?" and that I didnt need to buy two pairs of the same shoes in different colours. Yeah ok so i accepted that I was a consumer whore, but I said to him that he doesnt really have a right to flame me for shopping and not regularly donating, as I don't feel its my obligation to feed the poverty stricken kids in Ethiopia. Then he said i was being inhumane and said If i only donate 10% of my income a year to charity, i'd be a better person and that the world would be better off and as would I, he then went on to say that the tax system should make all Australians pay 20% tax..giving 10% to charity (Like Zakat). I dunno, he babbled on for a bit more then he asked me why I don't feel the obligation to donate 10% of my income to charity and I told him that.. I don't have an income and that ive never had a job or earnt a dollar in my life and he said that was shameful and that I should be donating all my 'pocket money' to charity if not atleast 10% of it.
So, is this guy deluded or right?

People don't trust charity. I don't. I'll give 5 bucks, but that's all. How much money do you think that was donated to christian charities has actually made it's way to the muslim areas that were most greatly impacted by the tsunami?

Or do you think it just went into filling the coffers of the business which is charity.

 

[erawamai]

Though I really am afraid of it being totally correct. It's hard not to fear the outcome of this, especially when he deconstructs my post. Quite personal, I feel.

Waf, how would I survive? How will the Opera House survive...

I also feel I'm not articulating what I truly want to say, I'm a bit stumbly with my words today

Market principles are nice and work well in areas that are truly amenable to the market.

As everyone knows there are winners and loosers in the market. You impede the market you make the winners win less and the loosers loose less. Whats better? Bigger winners and bigger loosers or smaller winners and smaller loosers?

Should health care be totally deregulated? A great majority of the population would be just ok, but a large proportion of the middle class living beyond it's means glutting itself on consumer goods will not be. But I guess that's tough shit.

The market isn't interested in humans and their pityful emotions. Everyone is a 'unit' in the market and you will be treated in such a way. As long as you are aware of how to play the market to ensure that you are not one of the loosers you will be fine.

 

[withoutaface]

On the issue of drugs. Are you also for complete privatisation of health services and removal of the PBS. This is related as various drugs increase the incidence of mental illness for example marijuana. If they choose to take a drug then they should be able to fund all consequences of said drug.

Within the current system of medicare, I would endorse a high amount of tax on drugs that have been shown to bring about future costs to the medical system.

What about issues resolving around physical addiction where consequences may be fatal, should taxpayer funds continue to be used such as alcohol addiction?

You mean taxpayer funds for rehabilitation programs? I don't think its the place of the state to provide these.

Would education about drugs be provided, who will fund this?

It would be in the interests of both parents (through direct talking to their children, as well as through sending children to schools which discuss such issues), and private health insurers to educate people about drugs, because it is in the interests of both that the individual does not take these drugs to such a point where they get sick.

What stance should such education take, pro-drug or anti-drug?

Neither. A frank assessment of the facts about what drugs are, what their immediate, medium and long term effects are should be provided, and individuals should be allowed to make their own decisions thereafter.

Will anti-drug commercials etc still be shown?

That depends on whether private health insurers wish to fund them.

 

[ur_inner_child]

Musicians would qualify as a high risk investment, because they might make millions, but they might make a pittance. It would end up that there would be just enough going through a musicians degree to ensure that, say, 90% of future millionaire musicians got through, and that there'd be a minimum of those people who'd end up being street buskers.
By definition of a surplus the extra people on top of what is needed would be of more use in another industry, and so this system would encourage that movement.

You misunderstand how the Con works. We're not hollywood pop singers. We won't make millions, but we can potentially make a five to six digit sum a year. We can get a very decent amount of royalties for our work. If I wrote a piece, the Opera House considers it and puts it on, being a particular quality, which can only be obtained through a University Standard. Give me an average joe who can write an orchestral piece well?

The problem is that Industries such as the Opera House, Sydney Symphony Orchestra does not give a shit about how many people should go into the degree, but the standard of each person as they come. They wouldn't invest anyone prior to university, no matter how much you say they have "potential". You feel its like guess work, or risky. I say that is EXACTLY the problem - guessing who has musical potential before they have the ability to realise it. With surplus, it makes the guess work more accurate, if that makes sense.

Problem lies here.

Or do I totally misunderstand?

Regardless, I feel its not accurate enough for the industry I'm in.

 

[withoutaface]

Waf, When you talk sense your suddenly not so much of a resident wanker anymore.


So, to come and crash your thread here's my issue/argument.

I was talking to this guy on the bus on the way to uni two weeks ago. He was a muslim, and we started talking about the charity. He said that Australia-as a society wasnt very charitable, so I asked him why he said that. And he said.. take you for example-He pointed to my 3 bags of shopping and said "Instead of buying all that excessive junk you could donate to charity".. and I said, but I don't feel like donating $100 to charity-I'm fine throwing in 10 bucks to world vision/oxfam stands once in a blue moon but I don't want to be donating $30/month and he said that was utterly selfish of me because he said I don't need another jacket for winter-"whats wrong with the one your wearing now?" and that I didnt need to buy two pairs of the same shoes in different colours. Yeah ok so i accepted that I was a consumer whore, but I said to him that he doesnt really have a right to flame me for shopping and not regularly donating, as I don't feel its my obligation to feed the poverty stricken kids in Ethiopia. Then he said i was being inhumane and said If i only donate 10% of my income a year to charity, i'd be a better person and that the world would be better off and as would I, he then went on to say that the tax system should make all Australians pay 20% tax..giving 10% to charity (Like Zakat). I dunno, he babbled on for a bit more then he asked me why I don't feel the obligation to donate 10% of my income to charity and I told him that.. I don't have an income and that ive never had a job or earnt a dollar in my life and he said that was shameful and that I should be donating all my 'pocket money' to charity if not atleast 10% of it.

So, is this guy deluded or right?

In America in 2003 $270 billion was given to charity (iirc). This is despite the existence of taxes which already fund welfare, foreign aid, etc, imagine how much higher it would be if such taxes didn't exist.
There are generally enough people who get enough of a good feeling out of donating to charity to fund welfare for the disabled, as well as the true "have nots" of our society, the latter of which only make up about 3% (based on statistics between 1970 and 1990 showing that only 3% of the American population remained in the bottom 20% of income earners for the whole period, and indeed 2/3 of the people who were in the bottom 20% in 1970 reached the top 20% at some time in the 20 year period).

 

[Xayma]

One problem with your shareholder system is that it can stifle innovation. If I come up with a new business concept or an idea and manufacture it, should they be entitled to a percentage share of the profits for that manufactured product continuously (after all it was all done during their period)? Or would they only get the profit that was produced during the years, with many products not selling well at the initialisation. If I had a great idea I might wait until after that period to develop it. Would the company be able to sell the information they collect about me to others? Such as my income or my grades?

I prefer a more broadbased government loan system that has compulsory payback possibly with a small amount of interest in addition to CPI adjustment.

Within the current system of medicare, I would endorse a high amount of tax on drugs that have been shown to bring about future costs to the medical system.

That can penalise educated users of drugs. For example mental illness is more likely to occur from the use of marijuana if there is a history of mental illness in the family. I have a history of depression in my family, someone who doesn't, if we both decide to smoke marijuana is paying for my poor decision choice.

 

[withoutaface]

You misunderstand how the Con works. We're not hollywood pop singers. We won't make millions, but we can potentially make a five to six digit sum a year. We can get a very decent amount of royalties for our work. If I wrote a piece, the Opera House considers it and puts it on, being a particular quality, which can only be obtained through a University Standard. Give me an average joe who can write an orchestral piece well?

The problem is that Industries such as the Opera House, Sydney Symphony Orchestra does not give a shit about how many people should go into the degree, but the standard of each person as they come. They wouldn't invest anyone prior to university, no matter how much you say they have "potential". You feel its like guess work, or risky. I say that is EXACTLY the problem - guessing who has musical potential before they have the ability to realise it. With surplus, it makes the guess work more accurate, if that makes sense.

Problem lies here.

Or do I totally misunderstand?

Regardless, I feel its not accurate enough for the industry I'm in.

You're not investing in individual musicians, most of the time. They'll be investing in the cohort, and if, on average, you guys make enough to justify the costs of educating you, then you'll find sponsorship.

 

[loquasagacious]

If it pays to make 1/2 the BSc's major in chem, 1/4 in maths and another 1/4 in physics then that's what the market will choose. In general the degree funding system will be based on what will enhance productivity the most.

Where do we draw the line, do they buy shares in degrees, majors, or individual courses?

Fitting this in is, admittedly, difficult, because it involves trying to reconcile a laissez faire free market idea within the current mixed market system. If all schooling were private, then teachers would be paid at the market value, and if there was a shortage then the projected pay for teachers would increase, and so would the number being trained. Public servants I'm not so sure.

I think this integration would simply be a matter of 'corporatising' education etc. That is to say forcing them to operate in a free market environment.

The education dept would for instance have to buy shares in teaching and I daresay that there's would have to be fairly attractive because firstly they dont have to run a profit and secondly they need students.

My remaining contention is that scholarships/cadetships are very similar to this programme however have fallen from favour, what makes the share system different? Apart from it being forced onto everyone?

And to elaborate another problem is the issue of critical mass eg the point at which a course will be offered at all. What if we need say 5 caterpillar experts in australia however 5 is clearly not enough to justify a university providing a course and it may be impossible for various reasons to import a caterpillar expert (quarantine and all).

 

[crazyhomo]

4. Labour market: I am absolutely opposed to the existence of a minimum wage, and believe that unions should not be given special legal status whereby they can force employers to deal through them, give worker's jobs special protection during strikes, prevent the hiring of scabs etc.

just a general question that i don't know the answer to, what special protections for strikes do we currently have? or used to have if the new laws have changed them?

 

[withoutaface]

Market principles are nice and work well in areas that are truly amenable to the market.

As everyone knows there are winners and loosers in the market. You impede the market you make the winners win less and the loosers loose less. Whats better? Bigger winners and bigger loosers or smaller winners and smaller loosers?

Evidence? Examples of the most liberalised markets which have seen a gradual transition to this state (i.e. Singapore and Hong Kong) show a better standard of living for almost everyone when compared to a) how they were before such reforms and b) other countries around them with much more interventionalist governments.

Should health care be totally deregulated? A great majority of the population would be just ok, but a large proportion of the middle class living beyond it's means glutting itself on consumer goods will not be. But I guess that's tough shit.

The genuinely disadvantaged are an absolute minority, and can be accounted for by private charity.

The market isn't interested in humans and their pityful emotions. Everyone is a 'unit' in the market and you will be treated in such a way. As long as you are aware of how to play the market to ensure that you are not one of the loosers you will be fine.

Appeal to emotion. You're speaking as if the market operates with no human input, and that people don't decide what products suceed and fail, thereby choosing which industries are useful etc.

 

[FuckLiberals]

I endorse a shareholder system to replace the current one, whereby a certain individual may choose to buy 'shares' in the education of, say, a hundred science students, and later, once they enter the workplace, they receive a certain percentage of that cohort's income for a given number of years. The benefits of this over HECS are as follows:
1. Students will be able to opt for a variety of packages, from a basic tuition fees only, to one which covers both that and certain living expenses, for a higher percentage of their future earnings. The way I see it, this will increase accessibility and help to overcome problems where students can't afford to move to the big cities to go to university.
2. It will make students more aware that at any moment people might refuse to buy shares for their next semester's worth of tuition, and so will give a greater incentive to work hard.
3. Gives universities greater incentives to find alternative sources of funding, such as what has occurred in the United States with Vanderbilt University, which only gets 9% of its income from tuition fees.
4. Creates closer to the right number of skilled graduates for any particular market condition. This is because when there are not enough students being sponsored compared to what the market requires, the projected income of these students will be a lot higher, and this will encourage sponsorship to rush into this sector, and once the right number is reached, prices will once again communicate this to investors, and they will invest in other degrees instead.
5. Lower taxes because taxpayers are no longer subsidising higher education.

I don't like this idea.

My system is a full fee paying system, but the student can get a loan to cover the fee costs and when they start working, they have to pay it back.

 

[erawamai]

Come on Waf? A completly deregulated labour market? A job is a persons life. A totally deregulated market would mean that employers and employees could sack whenever the market puts a squeeze on their profits.

Surely a balanced labour market is better than one that is totally controlled by outside forces or one that is beholden completely to the however the market breeze is blowing.

 

[The Brucemaster]

So basically your putting personal education down to a market value that is only going to be funded in accordance with demand.
As far as i can tell your imposing a free market system upon education, implying that an individual's education is a commodity.
I see a number of problems with this:

1) An individual whose desired career in life is not in demand will not have access to this course, as it is not beneficial to society at the time (as far as i can tell. Thus he/she will be forced in to a course that is not of his/her choosing and/or to his/her liking. This is most likely going to result in a lack of prductivity within both the course and the following career.
Not only that but i cant comprehend how the market plans to place a value on everything. Business/commerce etc. have monetary value, yes but what about the arts, social sciences, humanities etc? You need to explain in more detail how this value will be ascribed.

2) Many, if not all, facets of the education system, like the market in fact, rely on competition to increase their skills output. Take the example of the musician. If there are only five musicians in the class who are competing for four positions in a band then competition isnt going to be very hard and as such the talent of the musicians isnt going to develop as much as it would if say 30 musicians were competing for the same amount of spots.
From what i can see, if places in university courses were only offered based on "market demand" then this competition would be completely eradicated thus affecting the quality of students undertaking each course.

3) If society is only producing what is necessary for it to meet "demand" then society does not develop culturally or socially, only economically. This is only as far as i can tell from your argument.

4) How are you going to define market demand? Who will be the authoritative body that oversees this system and how will demand be decided?

Id move on to some of the other things you said but id be here for the next few hours, perhaps a separate thread for each one, unless thats too complicated, in which case ill deal with a couple of the major ones a bit later.

Restecpa for creating this thread though

P.S.
Just so you don't lose your faith in BOS if i was a couple of years older i would've been one of those lefty filth at the anti-VSU rally.

 

[erawamai]

Appeal to emotion. You're speaking as if the market operates with no human input, and that people don't decide what products suceed and fail, thereby choosing which industries are useful etc.

You seem to assume that people are perfect utiltarians who always choose to maximise their ultility. I think it's pretty well recongised that that certainly isn't the case.

In any case I wasn't appealing to emotion. The market doesn't give a fuck about your emotions or how you feel. It generally has no way of measuring or taking that into account. You are a unit within the market. I wasn't making a comment on whether this is bad or good.

 

[withoutaface]

One problem with your shareholder system is that it can stifle innovation. If I come up with a new business concept or an idea and manufacture it, should they be entitled to a percentage share of the profits for that manufactured product continuously (after all it was all done during their period)? Or would they only get the profit that was produced during the years, with many products not selling well at the initialisation. If I had a great idea I might wait until after that period to develop it.

Such things would be up to the individual to negotiate with the company. If they choose to keep all profits from ideas generated and developed during the period when the profits are taken after the period, perhaps they'd have a higher percentage of their income garnished. Similarly, if you wanted to negotiate something based on them getting royalties from new concepts you develop, then you'll get a lower percetage of your income taken.

Would the company be able to sell the information they collect about me to others? Such as my income or my grades?

Heavy penalties could be written into the contract to discourage such practices.

I prefer a more broadbased government loan system that has compulsory payback possibly with a small amount of interest in addition to CPI adjustment.

That would solve the burden upon taxpayers problem, but we'd still have issues with over/undersupply of certain professions, lack of incentive for universities to make money in other ways etc.

That can penalise educated users of drugs. For example mental illness is more likely to occur from the use of marijuana if there is a history of mental illness in the family. I have a history of depression in my family, someone who doesn't, if we both decide to smoke marijuana is paying for my poor decision choice.

I never said funding through taxes was perfect, and it's next to impossible to come up with an airtight solution without deconstructing medicare.

 

[crazyhomo]

re: education. do you think this stock market system should also be applied to primary and secondary schools? there is a shitload of education that is being handed out for free to kids all across the country, so really the market should be looking for a way to make money off them

 

[erawamai]

Don't you think extremism is a worry Waf? I mean extremist communists and extremist free marketists. Within the context of history fundementalists of any particular political or religious persuasion have never been good for society.

The free market and the winding back of the state can't be applied everywhere, unless of course you believe that there is no such thing as society. Maggie Thatcher proclaimed 'that there is no such thing as society'. You look out and all you see are individuals and no society, no social conscience or collective consciousness.

I think the USA and those who are responsible for corporate governance (many of who pushed for a total free market and a total lack of controls on corporations) got a nasty slap in the face when the market came back on whacked them in the face. I'm thinking ENRON and other 'bad apples' which ruined the free market corporate governance people's theories. As a result we are seeing a push more back towards more government control.

Hardline adherence to any political outlook is scary and narrow.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

I don't have the means to nut out a full argument here but I'll throw in a few things that could be worth thinking about (or preparing a response to for elections). I hope this is some consolation for your current NCAP boredom.

How is a private company sponsoring our education inherently different in terms of whether the company owns us or not when compared to the government sponsoring our education?

On that point, the government is supposed to make decisions and laws for public wellbeing. A corporation or other private bodies act according to the imperative of profit and the interests of private shareholders. While their desires or interests may fall in line with public wellbeing from time to time, do we really want to be placing the ultimate choices of what is best for people in the hands of an unelected private sector with different interests to the individual?

On the share system of education. As has been hinted at, areas that are important yet not of practical use to the market, are likely to be neglected or fall into desuetude. In leaving it to the market to determine what is most beneficial and needed for society, it would fail to take into account intangible areas of knowledge that are still very valuable yet have little economic import. Learning history, music or philosophy may not be in demand. But these disciplines have no currency visible to the market. As the old saying goes, not everything that counts can be counted.

On the labour market. There is an inherent conflict in our age between increasing national economic growth and living conditions, and the interests of those on the lower end of the wage spectrum. That is, in maximising employer flexibility, productivity and economic gains, this is likely to produce a larger gap between richer and poorer. Even with a recognisable majority middle class, this is still an important concern. So my question is, surely this is a matter of balancing those two interests and not letting economic rationalism quash all mechanisms to protect lower income earners? John Howard recently remarked that he would not like to see Australia go down the path of the US in terms of maximum employer flexibility and minimal worker protection. Whether this is a genuinely held belief or not, isn't there some sense in Howard's reluctance, and that we should attempt to balance the two?

 

[withoutaface]

Sorry, can you clarify? The latter quotation sounds like you're trying to show off economic theory. Would you suggest that it was more important for an economy to run on 75% efficiency, yet still retain some sort of intellectual reflection, or run on 99% efficiency and simply be a well-oiled machine. If the latter, how would you propose that the society stops becoming totally homogenous and essentially a group of blanked faces and jar-heads to be simply filled by the government?

Or would you suggest that the rich, Economic/Finance/Commerce students would somehow have critical aspects to their degrees? In which case, how would you get around the problem of EFC students WANTING to have critical challenges beyond EFC? Would you have a BCom (Arts) degree or something? Oh wait, we have no time for free thought!

If people want to do extra subjects which increase their critical thinking ability, but do little to help their employment prospects, then it's not society's role to fund such exploits, as they benefit only the individual undertaking them.

Do you mean an exclusively full-fee system for everyone? Would you have any sort of help for people who can't afford it, but show more merit than people who can afford it?

That's precisely what my shareholder system does.

What would you say to the fact that the less free education is, the more stratified (2-tiered, really) a society becomes? I don't mean just in relation to wealth, but in relation to identity. We'd have one group of people running the place, and another group of people running those people. It would come down to whether you could afford education or not, not whether you've got merit.

Again, you seem to have only read my first post.

Working to the point of affording uni fees is very hard, I can assure you - although I was on a scholarship and am now on HECS, I worked enough to know how much work was needed for a person to survive. So I guess you'd have to argue that fees would be lowered, or that help would be given? (In either case, what's the point in making university exclusive?) Or would you suggest that I'm unworthy for university?

As above.

I can't see how you could argue for out-right payment other than wanting to keep the rich rich and the poor poor. That idea of 'graduate quotas' only takes into account growth of the collectively wealthy.

It's not necessarily paid by the students themselves at the time of commencement.