MedVision ad

Semester 1 Chatter Thread (2006) (2 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.

Wolfowitz

, now also hated by Jews!
Joined
Dec 18, 2005
Messages
441
Location
Sydney - Kensington
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
Re: Semester 1 Chatter

Skeeta said:
guys parties off


not going (i dont think)
Way to ruin the universe.
I hope you feel guilty.
So many hopes and dreams riding on quiz supremacy.
Way to dash them...


I'LL HAVE ALL INFO TOMORROW.
IT'S ON WEDNESDAY THOUGH AT HERMANS - which is much nicer anyghei.
Stay tuned.

It's possibly 6.30 @ Hermans (all welcome, $5 for free pizza)...will msg all comers tomorrow.
 

Wolfowitz

, now also hated by Jews!
Joined
Dec 18, 2005
Messages
441
Location
Sydney - Kensington
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
Re: Semester 1 Chatter

brogan77 said:
:(


Faggot, if it's Wednesgay I'm not going anygay.
Yeah. Blow it. I can't be fucked anyghei. But if you can make it to the last theatresports on Thursday @ 1pm @ Manning you'll be rewarded with wanky time.
 

withoutaface

Premium Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2004
Messages
15,098
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
Re: Semester 1 Chatter

Woooooh my honi letter got published
 

Generator

Active Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2002
Messages
5,244
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
Re: Semester 1 Chatter

The coursework marks for ECOP1001 have been released.

Go the late mark penalty!
 

transcendent

Active Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2005
Messages
2,954
Location
Beyond.
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
Re: Semester 1 Chatter

hey WTF can you post your letter on here cause i don't read the Honi
 

gerhard

Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2005
Messages
850
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
Re: Semester 1 Chatter

he did its a couple of pages back
 

ujuphleg

oo-joo-fleg
Joined
Jan 2, 2004
Messages
3,040
Location
Sydney
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2004
Re: Semester 1 Chatter

transcendent said:
hey WTF can you post your letter on here cause i don't read the Honi

withoutaface said:
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

...
 

ujuphleg

oo-joo-fleg
Joined
Jan 2, 2004
Messages
3,040
Location
Sydney
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2004
Re: Semester 1 Chatter

absolution* said:
wafs economics preaching is so gay. fgt.
I’ve just pulled a few things from Justin’s letter that really concerned me and I haven’t had the time to really sit and go through it thoroughly. I agree with Jon though, it’s a little odd that you are making such sweeping generalisations about Economics being and Engineering student isn’t it?

withoutaface said:
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.
Orthodox economics also fails to analyse society accurately, so I don’t see how Political Economy should thus be any less valued than it. Unfortunately, being a student only of ECOP and not of ECON I am in no position to assert that one is more valued than the other or posits a more complete view of the economy than the other … much the same way that you aren’t either, dear Justin. :p


withoutaface said:
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.
a) Education isn’t profitable, should we just stop teaching the kids?
b) Nursing isn’t profitable, should we just let all the sick die?
c) Garbage collection probably isn’t profitable either, should we just let garbage collect everywhere then?

There are plenty of unprofitable sections of society, and despite the best efforts of our government to shut all of them down, its an inevitability that some things just can’t always make a profit. In terms of your postulate that its unprofitable purely because it fails to accurately predict people, well can anyone? Orthodox economics doesn’t do this either.

As for funding ourselves, well that’s an entirely different argument altogether. Dr. Wolziner’s comments about the student with the big tuition cheques really doesn’t make much sense at all, and effectively, cutting funding to departments all across the University is an act of discrimination against HECs students, which is a bit like treating people like aliens in their own country.


withoutaface said:
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.
Can’t argue with this, but I think you are simplifying things too simply. ECOP doesn’t just teach socialist economic paradigms, a large portion of this semester was devoted to Neo-Classical economic thinking as well as a deconstruction of all the other paradigms. Actually, the conclusion tended to be that all of the economic paradigms got it wrong, only because, they, like you, were simplifying the role of human behaviour in Economics too much. But again, that’s rather irrelevant to the actual discussion at hand.




withoutaface said:
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.
Actually, USyd is still the only university in Australia to offer ECOP.

withoutaface said:
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.
Actually, ASIO/ASIS, the Productivity Commission and the Australian Security and Investments Commission (to name a few) have all been looking specifically for students from USyd with ECOP majors/honours in the last few years.


withoutaface said:
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.
Well you got it in one there didn’t you? The articles were all written by different people and thus, you can’t expect complete objectivity. I know for a fact that Zach is actually quite pro-Keynesian, but snaps to him for being able to look at it objectively, maybe because he isn’t such an old hand with it as the other guys. Gabrielle will always vehemently defend feminist economics rightly or wrongly because that’s her field of specialty. I won’t deny that Stilwells involvement with the Greens plays a pivotal role in shaping the nature of the department, but with Gabrielle now as chair, this is changing (not necessarily for the better)
 

hiphophooray123

Twisted firestarter
Joined
Jun 26, 2005
Messages
4,982
Location
Sydney University Village
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
Re: Semester 1 Chatter

Generator said:
The coursework marks for ECOP1001 have been released.

Go the late mark penalty!


yep got mine

mini essay - 8/10

essay - 14/20

tute - 14/20

total - 36/50

thats cool because i just have to get 58% in the exam to get a credit in the unit.
 

hiphophooray123

Twisted firestarter
Joined
Jun 26, 2005
Messages
4,982
Location
Sydney University Village
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
Re: Semester 1 Chatter

ujuphleg said:
I’ve just pulled a few things from Justin’s letter that really concerned me and I haven’t had the time to really sit and go through it thoroughly. I agree with Jon though, it’s a little odd that you are making such sweeping generalisations about Economics being and Engineering student isn’t it?



Orthodox economics also fails to analyse society accurately, so I don’t see how Political Economy should thus be any less valued than it. Unfortunately, being a student only of ECOP and not of ECON I am in no position to assert that one is more valued than the other or posits a more complete view of the economy than the other … much the same way that you aren’t either, dear Justin. :p




a) Education isn’t profitable, should we just stop teaching the kids?
b) Nursing isn’t profitable, should we just let all the sick die?
c) Garbage collection probably isn’t profitable either, should we just let garbage collect everywhere then?

There are plenty of unprofitable sections of society, and despite the best efforts of our government to shut all of them down, its an inevitability that some things just can’t always make a profit. In terms of your postulate that its unprofitable purely because it fails to accurately predict people, well can anyone? Orthodox economics doesn’t do this either.

As for funding ourselves, well that’s an entirely different argument altogether. Dr. Wolziner’s comments about the student with the big tuition cheques really doesn’t make much sense at all, and effectively, cutting funding to departments all across the University is an act of discrimination against HECs students, which is a bit like treating people like aliens in their own country.




Can’t argue with this, but I think you are simplifying things too simply. ECOP doesn’t just teach socialist economic paradigms, a large portion of this semester was devoted to Neo-Classical economic thinking as well as a deconstruction of all the other paradigms. Actually, the conclusion tended to be that all of the economic paradigms got it wrong, only because, they, like you, were simplifying the role of human behaviour in Economics too much. But again, that’s rather irrelevant to the actual discussion at hand.






Actually, USyd is still the only university in Australia to offer ECOP.



Actually, ASIO/ASIS, the Productivity Commission and the Australian Security and Investments Commission (to name a few) have all been looking specifically for students from USyd with ECOP majors/honours in the last few years.




Well you got it in one there didn’t you? The articles were all written by different people and thus, you can’t expect complete objectivity. I know for a fact that Zach is actually quite pro-Keynesian, but snaps to him for being able to look at it objectively, maybe because he isn’t such an old hand with it as the other guys. Gabrielle will always vehemently defend feminist economics rightly or wrongly because that’s her field of specialty. I won’t deny that Stilwells involvement with the Greens plays a pivotal role in shaping the nature of the department, but with Gabrielle now as chair, this is changing (not necessarily for the better)
The bolded part is why i didn't take his letter seriously

but may i just say

justin...PWNED!
 

absolution*

ymyum
Joined
Sep 27, 2003
Messages
3,474
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
Re: Semester 1 Chatter

ujuphleg said:
I agree with Jon though, it’s a little odd that you are making such sweeping generalisations about Economics being and Engineering student isn’t it?

In terms of your postulate that its unprofitable purely because it fails to accurately predict people, well can anyone?

As for funding ourselves, well that’s an entirely different argument altogether. Dr. Wolziner’s comments about the student with the big tuition cheques really doesn’t make much sense at all, and effectively, cutting funding to departments all across the University is an act of discrimination against HECs students, which is a bit like treating people like aliens in their own country.

ECOP doesn’t just teach socialist economic paradigms, a large portion of this semester was devoted to Neo-Classical economic thinking as well as a deconstruction of all the other paradigms. Actually, the conclusion tended to be that all of the economic paradigms got it wrong, only because, they, like you, were simplifying the role of human behaviour in Economics too much. But again, that’s rather irrelevant to the actual discussion at hand.

Actually, USyd is still the only university in Australia to offer ECOP.
Susan youre the best.

Waf, I really do recommend that you do your research before you make public comments regarding faculties and subjects you are not actually involved in, especially considering your future political aspirations at the university, whatever they may be. Its a bad reflection on your narrow-mindedness.
 

withoutaface

Premium Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2004
Messages
15,098
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
Re: Semester 1 Chatter

ujuphleg said:
I’ve just pulled a few things from Justin’s letter that really concerned me and I haven’t had the time to really sit and go through it thoroughly. I agree with Jon though, it’s a little odd that you are making such sweeping generalisations about Economics being and Engineering student isn’t it?



Orthodox economics also fails to analyse society accurately, so I don’t see how Political Economy should thus be any less valued than it. Unfortunately, being a student only of ECOP and not of ECON I am in no position to assert that one is more valued than the other or posits a more complete view of the economy than the other … much the same way that you aren’t either, dear Justin. :p
I don't need to study structural mechanics to know that concrete and steel are better building matrials than cardboard and toothpicks. The fact that there's not a market for toothpick engineers tells me this.


a) Education isn’t profitable, should we just stop teaching the kids?
b) Nursing isn’t profitable, should we just let all the sick die?
c) Garbage collection probably isn’t profitable either, should we just let garbage collect everywhere then?
If nursing became endangered wages for nurses would go up to encourage more people to do it, as would teaching. Where are your sources on garbage collection ot being profitable.
There are plenty of unprofitable sections of society, and despite the best efforts of our government to shut all of them down, its an inevitability that some things just can’t always make a profit. In terms of your postulate that its unprofitable purely because it fails to accurately predict people, well can anyone? Orthodox economics doesn’t do this either.
Orthodox is not a perfect predictor of the market, but it does a lot better than anything else, and this is shown by the fact that companies are willing to hire economists.
As for funding ourselves, well that’s an entirely different argument altogether. Dr. Wolziner’s comments about the student with the big tuition cheques really doesn’t make much sense at all, and effectively, cutting funding to departments all across the University is an act of discrimination against HECs students, which is a bit like treating people like aliens in their own country.
HECS students are getting a service for cut price rate compared to full fee and international students, they're free to change to full fee places and end this "discrimination" if they so wish.
Actually, USyd is still the only university in Australia to offer ECOP.
There are socially oriented economics units at UNSW.
 

absolution*

ymyum
Joined
Sep 27, 2003
Messages
3,474
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
Re: Semester 1 Chatter

withoutaface said:
There are socially oriented economics units at UNSW.
Political economy is not socially orientated. It views the economy as aggregate, as opposed to the indiviudal transaction. There is nothing social about it. Economic exchange does not occur in a vaccum, and is privy to forces of all kinds whether they be political, social or environmental, and a study of such forces is natural to understand how the economy is constructed and functions. Once again, your perception of ECOP as a haven for Marxists and Socialists is misguided.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 2)

Top