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

[loquasagacious]

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.

As an aside in other ways singapore is a very protective as opposed to liberal state..

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.

This is the very point of wafs suggestion, as currently we as tax payers fund people to study things which are not in demand. As a result they graduate and can't find a job meaning they cant pay us back. Or they have to retrain and do something else etc.

As far as satisfaction goes we are such that when we are paid we feel good and so when we do something that pays us we feel good. People who work solely for satisfaction are few and far between. And furthermore the labour market is diverse just because graduates will be more in tune with the market does not mean that everyone will have to become an accountant. There will still be choice.

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.

This is you basically not understanding how the market works. The value of someone who studies arts/social sciences/humanities is determined just like eco/comm students by how much the market is willing to pay them because of their qualifications.

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.

The competition would actually be increased eg if there were a more limited number of places available in performing arts (because of limited interest by investors) the competition for these places would be fiercer. Where previously the top 100 got in now the top 50 get in and so the mean quality increases.

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.

Competition spurs developement hence society continues to develop, also refer to the better grade of muscians previously mentioned - because of this we have lost street buskers but kept successful muscians hence society still progresses culturally

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?

Thats just it there is no authoritative body in a free market, there would be no central determinant of demand, rather the 'invisible hand' of the market. Demand would be measured by what areas investors were backing eg if investors bought 10,000 places in engineering and only 50 in gender studies then we could conclude that demand for engineers is high and gender studies low.

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.

I disagree the market does take emotion into consideration as much as we as consumers do. It is measured by such things what we give up to work in more ethically rewarding roles eg social worker and how much more we pay for emotional reasons like 'australian made'.

In part why people are not perfect utilitarians because they allow emotions to cloud market participation.

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.

This seems in contrast to the idea of investors buying bulk lots of places, eg the original idea seems to remove any contact between the two parties whereas this suggests a personal contract between student and investor.

I prefer the former arbitrated through a central body as this reduces possibility for exploitation of students by investors and more pertinently it prevents students being uncompetitively bound to a company.

My idea would see people graduate work for whomever and pay back the investor - even if this meant working for a competitor etc. This prevents a company attaining an uncompetitive monopoly on graduates.

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

Given the power discrepancy it could be difficult for students to individually negotiate such clauses hence my interest in a liason between the two which much like a stockmarket organises two anonymous participants to buy/sell shares.

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

I second xaymas call to tackle medicare.

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?

Is the private system really unelected though, in some ways they are more accountable than government. Those that make up the private sector exist solely because of our patronage.

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.

Out of interest does anybody know if NIDA is HECS funded or a private full-fee establishment?

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.

I can't see the second being feasible capital and labour being typically imperfect substitutes and also that I daresay a caterpillar expert would be needed to create a caterpillar expert machine.

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

It is abit unfair to compare us to these economies because they are (or were recently) developing economies.

 

[withoutaface]

Generally, people are only going to do one university course, which determines a possible career path. Society paying for this, especially if its a university course such as medicine, which benefits society, isn't too much to ask for. Also, practically every student has an issue with paying for university fees. Yes, many people can fall back on rich parents, but not everyone can. Someones potential, and someones ability, is not correlated with the class that they are from. Offering a lower class person who has a high IQ a free position, is a smart move. They must just be the person who discovers the cure for HIV.

Read the thread. I've answered this criticism, multiple times.

Did you do legal studies? More specifically, did you do FAMILY? The major reason why people get married is for legal recognition and for the protection of children. Deinstitutionalising marriage? uh.... no.

Giving families special benefits discriminates against the individual.

They are more dangerous now, because that is their nature. Drugs, and the chemicals which make them up, are dangerous to the human body. Just like inhaling asbestos dust.

And if I want to inhale asbestos dust in a society with private hospitals, what business of the state's is it to stop me?

Your legal market is poisened. Legalising marijuana would simple mean that a person can grow a crop in their back yard and sell it that way. Nothing more, nothing less. It wouldn't fix any problems, hence the reason why no country in the world has done it thoroughly.

Why then is the majority of alcohol brewed in massive breweries? Why are the absolute majority of ciggarettes made in factories?

Haha, it'll never happen

Why not?

Yes... Little delinquents who come from lower economic dispositions don't have as much control as you, and are perhaps are more prone to be the victim of peer pressure.

That's their issue. Noone forces them to hang out with that crowd, and unless someone rams pills down their throat, then they have a choice.

Non-religious based counselling. I don't know if you've ever been to one, but its not like that. They would help to determine whether in fact she does need one.

She needs one if she says she needs one. The end.

A criminal record check takes 10 seconds at a computer screen.

Not if they're from Turkmenistan and carrying a fake passport.

Then why abolish the minimum wage system? Obviously you have pretty bad intentions, and actually want to see unskilled immigrants working HERE, as opposed to sweat shops over seas, for 1 cent an hour. It would only lower wages, and hence lower society further.

Setting price floors does not allow prices to perform their function, and does not properly distribute a scarce resource to where it can be used efficiently.

Employers can, and WOULD, push down an employees wage. You then get slums developing.

If my entire workplace has the employer trying to make us sign a contract, and noone agrees with it, I talk with my mates, and we tell the boss "we'll work on sundays, but you have to give us x more days of sick leave".

You're comfortable with another country having a monopoly over us? Also, the quality of many products goes down.

You're talking about monopolies being bad, then endorsing the idea of a government created monopoly being a good thing?
That's just retarded.
Also, where's your evidence that free trade causes a decline in quality?

What?

If you abolish protectionism, than Farmer A in Mildura cannot produce oranges at a profit. He is no longer paying tax, australians no longer get a good product.

That's because farmer A's land is better for producing apples, and oranges can be more cheaply imported from Indonesia. If all of Australia's goods are more expensive to produce than Indonesia's, this leads to a change in the value of the currency, and we get a mix of products produced here, and products produced overseas.

 

[loquasagacious]

If my entire workplace has the employer trying to make us sign a contract, and noone agrees with it, I talk with my mates, and we tell the boss "we'll work on sundays, but you have to give us x more days of sick leave".

Sounds like collective bargaining or even the genesis of a union to me.....

 

[withoutaface]

Sounds like collective bargaining or even the genesis of a union to me.....

There's nothing wrong with collective bargaining or unions as a concept. It's only when they get special legal rights, and the ability to lobby the government to create awards that issues arise.

 

[loquasagacious]

Taste anything in the shops. It tastes shit compared to even a few years ago.

Quantify this statement and prove a causal link. Hypothetically I tear your argument apart as being romantic and nostalgic (you retrosexual you) and also taste may well have declined because of the drought.

No, its because the indonesian farmer works for chicken feed because he's from a third world country. Farmer A loses his job, Australia loses a tax payer, and the Australian people lose a good quality product.

Why arn't indonesian oranges as good?

That the indonesian will work for chickenfeed clearly indicates that chickenfeed is the best possible alternative in his situation.

Farmer A is replaced by Farmer B who makes more money and we get more tax income.

 

[withoutaface]

Right......

....... Right..........

Stop evading the criticism.
pquote]Why are cars made in factories, yet suicide bomb vests aren't. Yet to posses one is normal, to have the other is not. yet.. Cars kill more people than suicide bomb vests.

Now get this through your "struggling-to-define-therefore-i'll-reject-the-social-norm" head.. IT'S CLEARLY NOT THE SAME THING. DERRRR.[/quote]
Both marijuana and alcohol are capable of being mass produced.

It's not as simple as that..

Explain how.

haha.. Okkkkk then... :S

It's called individual rights, if I want to take a shit I don't need a government committee to inform me of the relative benefits/problems of it.

Yet the ones being let in legitimately aren't held for 2 months... And are you saying that NONE of them are criminals?

We can ascertain within reasonable doubt whether they are or not.

That isn't answering what i've just said.

If immigrants come in, and work at 1c an hour, then we'll get cheaper goods. Meanwhile, all the immigrants will be employed, and employers will have no option but to employ Australians who will only take $5 an hour, and if they can still make a profit off them, then they'll hire them.

That's not going to happen.

It does.

How is the government creating a monopoly?

By shutting businesses out of the market, it grants a monopoly.

Taste anything in the shops. It tastes shit compared to even a few years ago.

Again, show me a survey from a reputable source.

No, its because the indonesian farmer works for chicken feed because he's from a third world country. Farmer A loses his job, Australia loses a tax payer, and the Australian people lose a good quality product.

Farmer A then starts working in another sector.

The dollar goes down because we aren't as self sufficient.

If the dollar goes down, the Aussie farmer can then compete at the same price level as the Indonesian farmer, everybody wins.

 

[loquasagacious]

You're also not looking at where the money in your pocket is coming from.

You're thinking "ok i get get this orange for cheaper from indonesia than off an Australian farmer.. who cares if he loses his job, i have more money". The money in your pocket (following the butterfly effect) has its origins in such industries. Your money is short term money.. It doesn't renew, because there are now no farmers making things, therefore a whole industry is gone, the economy starts to go down the drain.. We can now no longer afford to buy an orange from Indonesia.

You're clearly motivated by greed, as are all liberals. Sometimes its not feasible to be greedy.

Heard of comaparitive advantage?

Oranges may go down the drain but will be replaced by something else we do better in hence when oranges go down the economy goes up.

 

[gerhard]

yes but those farmers who go out of business now decide to be it consultants or something the third world cant do and they make alot of money that way.

just like if i open a paper shop and sell a4 paper i handmake from trees in my backyard. really i probably shouldnt expect protection, i should probably just become an it consultant

 

[withoutaface]

If they are as good as Australian oranges, than one should be philantropic enough to realise that buying an Australian Orange is an investment in ones country, and hence an investment in oneself, and should be willing to pay that extra amount, instead of being cheap.

Also, contrast No frills products with high quality ones. but they're the same things, right?

I don't care whether its good or bad for him. It's bad for Australia.
Farmer B lives in Indonesia.... His taxes go to Indonesia, not Australia.

Going by what you're saying we might as well pay people to dig holes and fill them in again, so long as we can tax them.

 

[The Brucemaster]

Further to that, you cannot view such things as labour markets from an individual and purely economic perspective, its just not applicable. Labour markets are a collective entity and thus must be viewed as a whole. The effect on the individual comes from the effect on the whole.
Also, whilst it is a predominantly economic consideration, there are numerous social effects which also have to be considered.
Look at the case of the orange farmer. If, as you've said for arguments sake, an Indonesian farmer can produce oranges for cheaper than an Australian farmer and we therefore buy oranges from Indonesia there is not only an economic result to this. Whilst me may make more of a profit in the orange industry what happens to all the farmers who depended on orange growing for their livelihood? Do they just pack up there things an go where "social demand" is? Can we expect them to just abandon their way of life simply for the sake of a bit of extra money for the economy?
If this happens then what happens to the industries such as Australian Fresh who only produce Australian Orange Juice (among others)?
Also, what if the quality of Indonesian oranges is significantly less than that of Australian oranges? Can we therefore expect the Australian consumer to pay the same price as they were for Australian oranges?
Finally, what do we do with all the land that has now become redundant?

Simply viewing things from an individual and economic perspective is ignorant and narrow-minded.

 

[gerhard]

Do they just pack up there things an go where "social demand" is? Can we expect them to just abandon their way of life simply for the sake of a bit of extra money for the economy?

This is pretty much what any businessperson would have to do should their business collapse. If I owned a steakhouse, and another steakhouse moved in next door and could make their steaks at half my price, then i would go out of business. There shouldnt be a tax placed on next doors stakes.

The only difference with the indonesian argument is that they are from another country. I guess we dont have to worry about them then.

 

[withoutaface]

Further to that, you cannot view such things as labour markets from an individual and purely economic perspective, its just not applicable. Labour markets are a collective entity and thus must be viewed as a whole. The effect on the individual comes from the effect on the whole.
Also, whilst it is a predominantly economic consideration, there are numerous social effects which also have to be considered.
Look at the case of the orange farmer. If, as you've said for arguments sake, an Indonesian farmer can produce oranges for cheaper than an Australian farmer and we therefore buy oranges from Indonesia there is not only an economic result to this. Whilst me may make more of a profit in the orange industry what happens to all the farmers who depended on orange growing for their livelihood? Do they just pack up there things an go where "social demand" is? Can we expect them to just abandon their way of life simply for the sake of a bit of extra money for the economy?
If this happens then what happens to the industries such as Australian Fresh who only produce Australian Orange Juice (among others)?
Also, what if the quality of Indonesian oranges is significantly less than that of Australian oranges? Can we therefore expect the Australian consumer to pay the same price as they were for Australian oranges?
Finally, what do we do with all the land that has now become redundant?

Simply viewing things from an individual and economic perspective is ignorant and narrow-minded.

He can plant apple trees instead.
Or, under your proposal, we could have him dig holes and fill them in again.

 

[The Brucemaster]

He can plant apple trees instead.
Or, under your proposal, we could have him dig holes and fill them in again.

So much for respecting the individual. Did it ever occur to you that apples and oranges are very different things. The art of apple farming, im quite sure, differs greatly from that of orange farming.
Suppose, also that the individual does not want to farm apples?
Furthermore, one can only presume that if oranges are cheaper overseas then surely apples are to?

 

[withoutaface]

If everything is cheaper overseas then the currency changes to reflect that, and then the price of Indonesian oranges goes to the same price as Australian oranges, and it becomes a question of quality.

Also, I endorse passive rights, meaning that we shouldn't prevent an individual from undertaking any action unless it conflicts with the rights of another. You're talking positive rights, which cause issues because where one person gains a positive right, someone else tends to lose time/money/labour.

 

[gerhard]

waf is hardly alone in his distaste for protectionism, the free world has been pretty much removing it for the last 20 yrs

 

[withoutaface]

What you're saying is unfair and unrealistic WAF.. You know that, but you're blinded by greed. You, and the Liberal party, are concerned with one thing. Making money. Even if the consequences are that you won't be able to continue to make money, or that future generations wont be able to live in relative luxury like we are.

I am blinded by nothing, and stand only for liberty. You, however, are blinded by racism and an unwillingness to analyse the facts.

 

[The Brucemaster]

I think its best if we stick with the issue here, otherwise its just going to descend like most other NCAP threads and thats precisely what we didnt want to happen.

WAF, your ideas about passive rights are not relevant here as we are talking about governmental decisions that affect entire industries. This effect flows on to the individuals that make up that industry and i was merely illustrating the typical effect of one type of individual within that industry.
However, if we take the concept you are endorsing with passive rights in the case of the individual and apply it to this scenario then we can see that there would be a drastic effect on the individual as a result of job loss and also the market as a result of loss of industry.
According to your ideas on individual rights therefore THIS SHOULDNT HAPPEN.

 

[withoutaface]

You're saying I'm anti individual rights because I don't think a particular individual should be guaranteed a job in the orange growing industry, regardless of his performance. I'm telling you that's a positive right, and hence not relevant to the basic ideal of liberty which I defend.
If, however, a government were to say to an Indonesian orange grower "No, fuck off, you can't sell oranges to Woolworth's in Australia because we're protectionist fucktards", then that would be denying liberty, because the government is preventing the farmer from doing something.

 

[The Brucemaster]

You're saying I'm anti individual rights because I don't think a particular individual should be guaranteed a job in the orange growing industry, regardless of his performance. I'm telling you that's a positive right, and hence not relevant to the basic ideal of liberty which I defend.
If, however, a government were to say to an Indonesian orange grower "No, fuck off, you can't sell oranges to Woolworth's in Australia because we're protectionist fucktards", then that would be denying liberty, because the government is preventing the farmer from doing something.

Well first of all i don't see why we whould give a shit about Indonesian farmers at all, they're Indonesia's conern not ours.
Second, I really don't believe you could ever question a farmer's performance. I think you'll struggle to find a lazy farmer.

 

[gerhard]

why should we care about australians more than indonesians?

frankly, even indonesias economy did increase at the expense of australias economy, i fail to see how this is a problem.