|
Do not derail the thread with discussions about other topics like global warming. |
On March 15 2012 22:24 TanTzoR wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2012 22:12 Hider wrote:On March 15 2012 21:43 TanTzoR wrote:On March 15 2012 21:28 Hider wrote: Wow too many people in here apparently seem to think that more people taking an education = Good no matter what, and hence advocate free education.
That is just abusred argumentation. And this is so sad that many people haven't been taught how to think logical:
An education is only a good idea if its cost-effecticient in relation to the present value of the expected future income.
This is such a basic concept, yet people just keep thinking that taking education = makes everybody richer off. It doesn't. And especially in countries like Denmark, people will take educations that doesn't really give you any knowledge that employeers demand.
But this is why education isn't suppoed to be free and taxes are suppoed to be low. If you have estimated that taking an education has a positive net presenet value, then you can either take a loan, or sell a "share" of your sell (so some investor get a percentage of your expected income - typically if you got good grades in high school he would be willing to take a low percentage of your expected income).
This is how an economy is suppoed to work. It doesn't increase social unjustice in any way. It still gives people the same possibilies, however nobody is gonna tork worthless educations that they are today. In the end everybody is gonna be better off. Sure if your the laziest guy ever in high school, nobody will probably give you a loan or take a share in you. However why is that a problem? Why should someone pay for this guy's education? How can you justifiy taking money from one guy and give it to this guy? There are soooo many positive externalities you don't even consider. Like? An no the argument that educaiton --> more jobs isn't valid if you understand how the free market works. It's not only about jobs and economics. Like I said I'm not going to list them all but, for instance, with a well educated population a democracy is more likely to be successful. Less inclined to go to extremes like racism and such. Neo-nazi nowadays are rarely rocket scientists.
There are lot more factors that is relevant when discussing culture, but most likely people turn to sick movements when the economy is doing bad. And obv. if people are paid to take wortheless educations then the economy will do worse.
But lets say there is a movement, some people are racist. So what? Does it hurt you in any way as long as they dont violate your human rights?
Or is your theory that if people don't take an education, then they will vote for the wrong politican, and hence people need to be paid for useless educations so they vote for the right guy? I feel that is an insane theory, and that can only create "voter corruption": 1 politician say "I give you a free education if you vote for me". Other politican say: "You have to pay for your own education".
Obiviosuly a lot of people will vote for the first politican, and this is unfortunately why we are having such terrible economics today in almost all countries.
|
On March 15 2012 22:38 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2012 22:24 TanTzoR wrote:On March 15 2012 22:12 Hider wrote:On March 15 2012 21:43 TanTzoR wrote:On March 15 2012 21:28 Hider wrote: Wow too many people in here apparently seem to think that more people taking an education = Good no matter what, and hence advocate free education.
That is just abusred argumentation. And this is so sad that many people haven't been taught how to think logical:
An education is only a good idea if its cost-effecticient in relation to the present value of the expected future income.
This is such a basic concept, yet people just keep thinking that taking education = makes everybody richer off. It doesn't. And especially in countries like Denmark, people will take educations that doesn't really give you any knowledge that employeers demand.
But this is why education isn't suppoed to be free and taxes are suppoed to be low. If you have estimated that taking an education has a positive net presenet value, then you can either take a loan, or sell a "share" of your sell (so some investor get a percentage of your expected income - typically if you got good grades in high school he would be willing to take a low percentage of your expected income).
This is how an economy is suppoed to work. It doesn't increase social unjustice in any way. It still gives people the same possibilies, however nobody is gonna tork worthless educations that they are today. In the end everybody is gonna be better off. Sure if your the laziest guy ever in high school, nobody will probably give you a loan or take a share in you. However why is that a problem? Why should someone pay for this guy's education? How can you justifiy taking money from one guy and give it to this guy? There are soooo many positive externalities you don't even consider. Like? An no the argument that educaiton --> more jobs isn't valid if you understand how the free market works. It's not only about jobs and economics. Like I said I'm not going to list them all but, for instance, with a well educated population a democracy is more likely to be successful. Less inclined to go to extremes like racism and such. Neo-nazi nowadays are rarely rocket scientists. There are lot more factors that is relevant when discussing culture, but most likely people turn to sick movements when the economy is doing bad. And obv. if people are paid to take wortheless educations then the economy will do worse. But lets say there is a movement, some people are racist. So what? Does it hurt you in any way as long as they dont violate your human rights? Or is your theory that if people don't take an education, then they will vote for the wrong politican, and hence people need to be paid for useless educations so they vote for the right guy? I feel that is an insane theory, and that can only create "voter corruption": 1 politician say "I give you a free education if you vote for me". Other politican say: "You have to pay for your own education". Obiviosuly a lot of people will vote for the first politican, and this is unfortunately why we are having such terrible economics today in almost all countries.
You are judging what is worthless. A world with only engineers and workers would be sad. And for the politician thing, well if he says "free education" then since the people are educated they know it will cause the taxes to raise. If they are ok with this trade they vote for him. But if people are uneducated politicians will be able to abuse demagogic arguments and people will get even more fucked than usual.
Your last statement is so wrong...look at the US and the price of their studies, look at their economic situation. As I have no evidence that free education ensures growth neither can you say "this is unfortunately why we are having such terrible economics".
|
In Brazil the best universities are free (: . It's hard to get into them though.
|
On March 15 2012 21:21 Piy wrote: I don't think university should be free. It's an investment and you can easily work your way through it and emerge without much debt.
In Scotland we don't pay fees, but we probably should. I think it should be privatised, rather than relying on taking money from people who don't attend university to pay for others who want to go, which is essentially what happens if you pay for it with tax (i.e. it's not free, it just means other people have to pay for it).
However, the ridiculous fees in the US are absurd, and the ones in England are getting pretty silly too. Theres really no reason for Education to be THAT expensive - it didn't used to be.
It is in the national interest for the country to subsidize the academic future of our youth. Education will get that expensive if it is privatised, resulting in a detrminetal effect on available talent pool and social mobility. The only factor in deciding who gets what place should be on academic merit alone.
Scotland actually has a pretty solid education system, where we go wrong is that we simply offer to many places, devaluing the entire worth of degree in the first place. 50% of the entire population goes to univeristy now, if we trimmed the fat off some of the courses and increased the entry difficulty it would cut costs and increase merit. They need to increase the difficulty of standard grades/higher/adv highers and make the spots at universty more competitve. Getting straights "A's" at school should be an anomaly, not something happening to a few kids in every year group. We could further reduce costs by shortening most of our courses from 4 years to 3 years. The 1st year of most subjects is mostly a free ride anyway.
|
On March 15 2012 22:44 TanTzoR wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2012 22:38 Hider wrote:On March 15 2012 22:24 TanTzoR wrote:On March 15 2012 22:12 Hider wrote:On March 15 2012 21:43 TanTzoR wrote:On March 15 2012 21:28 Hider wrote: Wow too many people in here apparently seem to think that more people taking an education = Good no matter what, and hence advocate free education.
That is just abusred argumentation. And this is so sad that many people haven't been taught how to think logical:
An education is only a good idea if its cost-effecticient in relation to the present value of the expected future income.
This is such a basic concept, yet people just keep thinking that taking education = makes everybody richer off. It doesn't. And especially in countries like Denmark, people will take educations that doesn't really give you any knowledge that employeers demand.
But this is why education isn't suppoed to be free and taxes are suppoed to be low. If you have estimated that taking an education has a positive net presenet value, then you can either take a loan, or sell a "share" of your sell (so some investor get a percentage of your expected income - typically if you got good grades in high school he would be willing to take a low percentage of your expected income).
This is how an economy is suppoed to work. It doesn't increase social unjustice in any way. It still gives people the same possibilies, however nobody is gonna tork worthless educations that they are today. In the end everybody is gonna be better off. Sure if your the laziest guy ever in high school, nobody will probably give you a loan or take a share in you. However why is that a problem? Why should someone pay for this guy's education? How can you justifiy taking money from one guy and give it to this guy? There are soooo many positive externalities you don't even consider. Like? An no the argument that educaiton --> more jobs isn't valid if you understand how the free market works. It's not only about jobs and economics. Like I said I'm not going to list them all but, for instance, with a well educated population a democracy is more likely to be successful. Less inclined to go to extremes like racism and such. Neo-nazi nowadays are rarely rocket scientists. There are lot more factors that is relevant when discussing culture, but most likely people turn to sick movements when the economy is doing bad. And obv. if people are paid to take wortheless educations then the economy will do worse. But lets say there is a movement, some people are racist. So what? Does it hurt you in any way as long as they dont violate your human rights? Or is your theory that if people don't take an education, then they will vote for the wrong politican, and hence people need to be paid for useless educations so they vote for the right guy? I feel that is an insane theory, and that can only create "voter corruption": 1 politician say "I give you a free education if you vote for me". Other politican say: "You have to pay for your own education". Obiviosuly a lot of people will vote for the first politican, and this is unfortunately why we are having such terrible economics today in almost all countries. You are judging what is worthless. A world with only engineers and workers would be sad. And for the politician thing, well if he says "free education" then since the people are educated they know it will cause the taxes to raise. If they are ok with this trade they vote for him. But if people are uneducated politicians will be able to abuse demagogic arguments and people will get even more fucked than usual. Your last statement is so wrong...look at the US and the price of their studies, look at their economic situation. As I have no evidence that free education ensures growth neither can you say "this is unfortunately why we are having such terrible economics".
Worthless = You are not creating any service/product that someone is willing to pay for. US system isn't really free either, though its relatively more free than most european systems. But when people only takes an education if they think it has a positive NPV, then this will lead to higher economic growth.
The only argument you can put against this, is if you think that government throgh planned economics is better at deciding what has value for each individual than the individuals them selves (planned economics/socialism).
Obivously planned economics doesn't work. Free markets does (I hope this doesn't need further explanation). THe reason people think free education is good has nothing to with better economy, but with the fact that they think its a human right to take a education.
But as I have pointed out: In a free society, those who are expected to have a positive NPV by taking an educaiton will be able to take an educaiton as long as they are able to convince an investor or creditor that they should take an education.
Some people however can't take a (long) educaiton because it has a negative NPV. However what is wrong with that? Some people are not meant to read books all day. Maybe some people are actually meant to start working after 9th grade or after high school? People are different, and I disagree that is a human right that everybody should have a right to take an educaiton.
|
For the US I was speaking about the fees of their unis. I hope when you talk about education not being free you don't consider it before uni?
|
On March 15 2012 23:19 TanTzoR wrote: For the US I was speaking about the fees of their unis. I hope when you talk about education not being free you don't consider it before uni?
Lets keep the focus here on uni yes
|
Then why are you saying me that the US system is more free than most of the Europeans system? Btw do you have example of worthless studies?
|
Technically nothing is free.
Taxes weee! ;o
|
On March 15 2012 23:22 TanTzoR wrote: Then why are you saying me that the US system is more free than most of the Europeans system? Btw do you have example of worthless studies?
Because many are "private" (operating in a heavily regulated market though).
What I want is obv. a completely free university market (and by that i mean the opposite of what you mean by "free". I mean no regulation, no government interference).
|
On March 15 2012 23:15 Hider wrote: Obivously planned economics doesn't work. Free markets does (I hope this doesn't need further explanation).
What are you mumbling about. No nation operates as a purely hypothetical free maket because it would be an umititagated disaster to have no government regulation on buisness. All western economies operate as mixed economies, theres competition and individual choices but it operates in a sanctioned government legal framework.
Hell, the Soviet Union lasted 70 years, thats longer than any libertarian's wet dream fictitious free market has ever lasted.
|
On March 15 2012 23:26 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2012 23:22 TanTzoR wrote: Then why are you saying me that the US system is more free than most of the Europeans system? Btw do you have example of worthless studies? Because many are "private" (operationg in a heavily regulated market though).
Wait wait. What kind of "free" are we talking about here? I don't really understand. It seems to me that the average student in the US has to pay way more than the average student in Europe.
|
On March 15 2012 23:27 Asymmetric wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2012 23:15 Hider wrote: Obivously planned economics doesn't work. Free markets does (I hope this doesn't need further explanation). What are you mumbling about. No nation operates as a purely hypothetical free maket because it would be an umititagated disaster to have no government regulation on buisness. All western economies operate as mixed economies, theres competition and individual choices but it operates in a sanctioned government legal framework. Hell, the Soviet Union lasted 70 years, thats longer than any libertarian's wet dream free market has ever lasted.
Wrong. Go read polticially incorrect guide to capitalism by Robert Murphy. You honestly haven't throught this through.
|
On March 15 2012 23:27 TanTzoR wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2012 23:26 Hider wrote:On March 15 2012 23:22 TanTzoR wrote: Then why are you saying me that the US system is more free than most of the Europeans system? Btw do you have example of worthless studies? Because many are "private" (operationg in a heavily regulated market though). Wait wait. What kind of "free" are we talking about here? I don't really understand. It seems to me that the average student in the US has to pay way more than the average student in Europe.
I editted it.
|
On March 15 2012 23:28 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2012 23:27 Asymmetric wrote:On March 15 2012 23:15 Hider wrote: Obivously planned economics doesn't work. Free markets does (I hope this doesn't need further explanation). What are you mumbling about. No nation operates as a purely hypothetical free maket because it would be an umititagated disaster to have no government regulation on buisness. All western economies operate as mixed economies, theres competition and individual choices but it operates in a sanctioned government legal framework. Hell, the Soviet Union lasted 70 years, thats longer than any libertarian's wet dream free market has ever lasted. Wrong. Go read polticially incorrect guide to capitalism by Robert Murphy. You honestly haven't throught this through.
He's wrong. See, that simple.
|
On March 15 2012 23:26 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2012 23:22 TanTzoR wrote: Then why are you saying me that the US system is more free than most of the Europeans system? Btw do you have example of worthless studies? Because many are "private" (operating in a heavily regulated market though). What I want is obv. a completely free university market (and by that i mean the opposite of what you mean by "free". I mean no regulation, no government interference).
Actually the US system is a lot more limited o.0
If free means that instead of getting into uni because of your academic grades and instead getting in because you pay.. wat? That doesn't even make sense :S Could you explain yourself a bit more please?
|
Should it be free? YES FFS!!!
What is it like where I live? In germany it differs. Where I live it is 400€/year which is basically only to cover the expenses university has on the organisational part and to pay for the bus/train ticket. For one year it was raised to 1400€/year. Uproar and a political change resulted in the fees being removed again which brings us back to 400€/year.
Why should it be free? 1. I'd never thought it but the raised fees actually made many people quit there studies and stopped some people I know from studying. Trust me: Not everyone can afford to study even with small fees. There is always at least SOMEONE who doesn't have the money to study - even though he'd be a great student. 2. Additionally the PISA study clearly indicates that those countries have the highest degree of knowledge and abilities that enables a broad variety of people to attend higher education. 3. Knowledge becomes increasingly important plus there is a shift from "hard work"-jobs to intellectually demanding and often changing jobs. You simply need as much education as you can get for this.
|
On March 15 2012 23:30 Asymmetric wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2012 23:28 Hider wrote:On March 15 2012 23:27 Asymmetric wrote:On March 15 2012 23:15 Hider wrote: Obivously planned economics doesn't work. Free markets does (I hope this doesn't need further explanation). What are you mumbling about. No nation operates as a purely hypothetical free maket because it would be an umititagated disaster to have no government regulation on buisness. All western economies operate as mixed economies, theres competition and individual choices but it operates in a sanctioned government legal framework. Hell, the Soviet Union lasted 70 years, thats longer than any libertarian's wet dream free market has ever lasted. Wrong. Go read polticially incorrect guide to capitalism by Robert Murphy. You honestly haven't throught this through. He's wrong. See, that simple.
I wrote in the same way as you did. You claimed that it led to disaster. But there was no argumentation. Honestly there are tons of people like you, who thinks they understand how the free market works, but they don't really. They only know what they been told by parents/teachers/politicans who doesn't get it either.
It would take me a lot of time to explain it to you ( I have done that in other threads but its very time consuming), so instead I advice you to read that book. Now tell me why he is wrong.
|
If you don't subsidize education, then the rich will pay for good education and the poor will skimp on it. Thus the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. That leads to greater social unrest such as protests.
|
I'd just like to point out that university education IS free. UC Berkeley, MIT, Stanford, and some other schools have posted videos and notes of their lectures for pretty much every course. You can even go sit in at your local University campus and learn whatever the professor is teaching.
What is not free is getting your diploma (and tutorial/labs experience but beggers can't be choosers). However, I forget which school, but they were planning on running an Electricity course and starting a new online-diploma program where you get some form of credit for finishing and doing well in the course.
Example:
http://webcast.berkeley.edu/
|
|
|
|