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

[withoutaface]

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

I'd support something of a voucher system for primary and secondary schools, because:
a) such education is necessary to prepare the population for citizenship;
b) everyone has gone through such education.

 

[crazyhomo]

I'd support something of a voucher system for primary and secondary schools, because:
a) such education is necessary to prepare the population for citizenship;
b) everyone has gone through such education.

i don't know what a voucher system is

 

[erawamai]

a) such education is necessary to prepare the population for citizenship;
b) everyone has gone through such education.

Nationalism and citizenship are a hinderance to the market.

 

[Xayma]

That would solve the burden upon taxpayers problem, but we'd still have issues with over/undersupply of certain professions

Then those industries should advertise, pay higher wages or pay lower wages. Possibly offering a contract system whereby they pay for the entire course at the outset so the student isn't left in debt. This system exists now, however with full university fees students would view them as more attractive.

How would it discourage universities from looking towards other sources of revenue?

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

Then why should medicare remain?

 

[withoutaface]

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?

Experience in countries with more interventionalist economies has shown that the government stuffs up when trying to act in the public interest more often that corporations do acting in their own.

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.

If your philosophical ideas are worthwhile, then publish them and either many people will buy the book for a modest price, or a few people will buy the book for a rather high price. The advancement of knowledge should be pushed in the direction where it best benefits the overall standard of living, and this is the way the market tends to push it.

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.

You've assumed that an increasing gap means that bottom rung isn't increasing in wealth. Just because the rich are increasing faster than the poor, doesn't mean that the poor aren't increasing faster than they would under a more interventionalist system.

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?

What mechanisms protect lower income earners? Minimum wages that price people out of the market, drive them into a cycle where they cannot get a job because they don't have experience, and cannot get experience because they can't get a job?

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?

Howard's relucatance is because anything else would lead to more massive scare campaigns by the ACTU declaring that he hates the poor, which would be difficult to rebutt because the public do not wish to sit down reading 1000+ word explanations of why such accusations are unfounded.

 

[withoutaface]

i don't know what a voucher system is

Whereby the government ensures a certain amount of money goes into each person's education, regardless of whether they choose public or private schools, and parents can choose to supplement this amount with their own income.

 

[erawamai]

What mechanisms protect lower income earners? Minimum wages that price people out of the market, drive them into a cycle where they cannot get a job because they don't have experience, and cannot get experience because they can't get a job?

Under the current system, where unions actually exist, unemployment is hardly a problem. No one is really being priced out of the market by the min wage at the moment.

The only people that would be priced out of the market by the current min wage or people who are disabled or have just left prison.

 

[withoutaface]

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).

Then there are two options, of which the cheapest will be chosen:
1. Offer higher pay to caterpillar experts, so that such a course becomes justified;
2. Use capital instead of labour, and develop machinery to do the job instead.

 

[withoutaface]

Under the current system, where unions actually exist, unemployment is hardly a problem. No one is really being priced out of the market by the min wage at the moment.

The only people that would be priced out of the market by the current min wage or people who are disabled or have just left prison.

Why is our unemployment double what Singapore's is now? Or nearly five times what Hong Kong's was prior to the handover?

 

[withoutaface]

Then those industries should advertise, pay higher wages or pay lower wages. Possibly offering a contract system whereby they pay for the entire course at the outset so the student isn't left in debt. This system exists now, however with full university fees students would view them as more attractive.

But students are less likely to have all the information at their fingertips about how high the employment rate is in a certain industry, as well as projections etc.

How would it discourage universities from looking towards other sources of revenue?

Because if they receive government funding either way, it's hardly encouraging them to find such funding.

Then why should medicare remain?

It shouldn't.

 

[erawamai]

Why is our unemployment double what Singapore's is now? Or nearly five times what Hong Kong's was prior to the handover?

You believe there is a problem with our level of unemployment? I hope you dont honestly believe that we can have full employment? A bit utopian?

HK and Singapore have what is called 'asian values' whereby human rights and basic human dignity are considered western things. Human life is worth nothing, I know I'm Half Asian and I've seen it first hand. The reason why Singapore and HK and other asian nations have low unemployment rates is because they have a working poor and what we call 'slums'. Sure this is probably better than before when they never had jobs (well they never had anything before at all. There wasn't even a real division of labour) but it perpetuates a subclass when a certain group of people are employed. Probably not any different from the subclass that would exist with the minimun wage. But for the sake of social cohesion most people seem happy with the idea that those right at the bottom be given some money from the government purse to stop them being found dead in the gutter.

Currently I dont think that anyone in Australia hardly is being priced out of the market for employment by the min wage. You have to try pretty hard to not get a job in Australia at the moment. You eitherhave to be an ex prisoner found guilty of child molestation, mentally retarded or physically handicapped.

 

[Xayma]

But students are less likely to have all the information at their fingertips about how high the employment rate is in a certain industry, as well as projections etc.

Because if they receive government funding either way, it's hardly encouraging them to find such funding.

It shouldn't.

But since the industry will be paying for the training why do they need to look for other sources of income? Which will instead just be passed on to the consumer in addition to various universities advertising to a large industry field increasing the cost to the individual institutions.

It also has issues with changes in degrees. Say I plan on changing to become a caterpillar expert, I will have a large penalty looming over my head for doing so, as opposed to a full fee system where I just have my current debt. If I can not pay off the penalty at the time then I have very little choice.

 

[gerhard]

see i cant really argue in this thread because i think education is pretty much the aim of life. otherwise we just work and die. at least if we get educated we can appreciate the beauty of it and try to understand people and life and the truth and everything else.

 

[crazyhomo]

Whereby the government ensures a certain amount of money goes into each person's education, regardless of whether they choose public or private schools, and parents can choose to supplement this amount with their own income.

but why will the stock system not work for primary and secondary education? if education "is necessary to prepare the population for citizenship", then surely the market will recognise this and place the appropriate monetary reward into it? why should the government be interfering with economic transactions?

 

[The Brucemaster]

see i cant really argue in this thread because i think education is pretty much the aim of life. otherwise we just work and die. at least if we get educated we can appreciate the beauty of it and try to understand people and life and the truth and everything else.

I think that may have been the best argument of them all.

Hats off to you my friend.

 

[Xayma]

but why will the stock system not work for primary and secondary education? if education "is necessary to prepare the population for citizenship", then surely the market will recognise this and place the appropriate monetary reward into it? why should the government be interfering with economic transactions?

Because very few businesses will fund things such as religious education (economics is good for some things then).

Edit: Since secondary education is so important to becoming a citizen I'm assuming that you support compulsory schooling through to year 12? Or should people pay for senior schooling.

Just on a side note, one of my major problems with any true free market solutions is that it is defeated by darwinsim. Parents want to give their child the best help, which puts others at an unfair disadvantage in the market.

 

[withoutaface]

You believe there is a problem with our level of unemployment? I hope you dont honestly believe that we can have full employment? A bit utopian?

Full employment, no, but anyone who wants a job should be able to find one.

HK and Singapore have what is called 'asian values' whereby human rights and basic human dignity are considered western things. Human life is worth nothing, I know I'm Half Asian and I've seen it first hand. The reason why Singapore and HK and other asian nations have low unemployment rates is because they have a working poor and what we call 'slums'. Sure this is probably better than before when they never had jobs (well they never had anything before at all. There wasn't even a real division of labour) but it perpetuates a subclass when a certain group of people are employed. Probably not any different from the subclass that would exist with the minimun wage. But for the sake of social cohesion most people seem happy with the idea that those right at the bottom be given some money from the government purse to stop them being found dead in the gutter.

Currently I dont think that anyone in Australia hardly is being priced out of the market for employment by the min wage. You have to try pretty hard to not get a job in Australia at the moment. You eitherhave to be an ex prisoner found guilty of child molestation, mentally retarded or physically handicapped.

How about the issue of a minimum wage interfering with the effective transmission of information, and keeping people employed in industries which, while the corporation might make a profit by employing them, they would make more profit in another industry. This causes consumers to pay more for products than necessary, which is a rather significant problem.

 

[withoutaface]

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.

If their course is not in demand, then they're not likely to find a job anyway, so they'll spend their life unemployed.

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.

Every artwork has a market value. Every novel has a market value. Just because an artwork in itself cannot be described by a formula doesn't mean its net effect upon society can't.

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.

So you'd have 25 people not be able to find employment so that 5 people can get a marginal improvement in musical ability?

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.

By your logic when I remove 25 people from an accounting course to do music, the quality of accountants degrades. We must reach a balance of quality across all courses .

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.

Why can't society develop socially or culturally? If I make a new kind of music, and people like it, there'll be demand, and thus a high market value. All of this while society develops culturally because of this music. Same deal with social change.

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?

Demand is decided as it always is, from the bottom down. People buy lots of product A, there is a demand, and more people are pumped into producing product A. Very few people buy product B, the opposite happens. I have no idea where this came from, but if you're talking about authoritative bodies determining demand you clearly don't know much about free markets.

 

[katie_tully]

Can we debate about the new boat people laws, and by debate just talk about how good they are, and how bad pansy backbenchers are?

 

[withoutaface]

Higher education should be FREE (consider it an investment) with the oppurtunity for people to pay if they want more than the usual.

An investment in what? If you're going to pull the "benefit to society" argument out, I'd point out that one's contribution is generally recognised through their income, and so you're suggesting that society pay for the same benefit twice.

Marriage needs to be recognised by the state,

Why?

and only forms of marriage which benefit the state and its history and don't threaten the ascession should be recognised.

Making your arguments more cryptic by making up words doesn't make them more valid. Please rephrase.

Illicit drugs should not be legalised, they are dangerous,

They are more dangerous now than they would be if they were legalised because:
1. Lack of quality controls, leads to overdoses. Dealers have no reasonable expectation of still having the same customer base in six months time, and so have no incentive to make sure their drugs are 100% quality controlled, a legal market would fix this.
2. Flow on crime. A very significant proportion of crimes in society are committed by people who need to scrape a lot of money together to pay the inflated prices of the drug black market. Legalisation would make drugs cheaper, because it costs less to import an oil tanker full in one go than in the stomachs of a thousand individuals.

and legalising them would only lead to more people using them;

Evidence?

people who would otherwise not use them.

I don't refuse to take drugs because they're illegal, I refuse because they cause long term problems.

Abortion should be allowed, but only after the mother has been counselled (so that she can see for certain whether she really needs an abortion).

Immoral coercive force. May intimidate the woman into a decision she'll later forget. And there are going to be very few women that will have an abortion based on a whim.

Any policy of Mandatory detention, when the government is letting in tens of thousands of immigrants legitimately, is futile and pointless. The government is deliberately holding refugees back, gainging media attention, saying "look! look! we're keeping these people out, no.. no .. Don't look over THERE.. Look over HERE.. LOOK how we are keeping out this small amount of refugees" whereby, they are letting in tens of thousands of immigrants without the public being aware.

You're ignoring that we have instant access to the criminal records of those tens of thousands. We need a screening system of some kind for those which we can't, and I think mine strikes the right balance.

You're opposed to a minimum wage? Are you crazy? You're letting your ideals influence you out of reality. A minimum wage is a fundamental right if there ever was one. We don't want unskilled people working for 1 cent an hour, that's ridiculous, and don't argue that "that will never happen", because if its never going to happen, then why bother alowing it?

Because wherever they might work for 1c an hour, they can work for $5 an hour somewhere else. Just because a business is making a profit while employing people at the minimum wage does not mean the people are being employed in the most efficient manner.

A society like Australia, which has a large farming base, has no need to import any produce, and any produce that is imported, from Asian for instance, only serves to diminish our agriciultural sector. Farmers are already having to close down. This fucks up the "food chain" of the economy.

Farmers are closing down and moving to other industries, where they can make a greater profit, and the overall result is a cheaper price and higher quality for the consumer.

Did you learn in year 10 science that if you take animal A out of the food chain, than animal B has nothing to eat, than Animal C has nothign to eat, than animal D has nothing to eat? Same principle. Farmers are important.

You're ignoring the fact that Animal E exists as an alternative for Animal B to eat.