Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Why are you and your cabinet colleagues lying about affordability? Watch

    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SciFiBoy)
    doing it would avoid the cuts and job losses...make the bankers and the super rich pay for there own crisis.
    Blame the bankers :rolleyes: Basically all you are doing is blaming it on people who have done well. Most of this cirsis is NOT the riches fault, and a minority of bankers.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SciFiBoy)
    doing it would avoid the cuts and job losses...make the bankers and the super rich pay for there own crisis.
    Thus driving the wealthy and wealth creation out of the country, damaging the economy for everybody else. Yes, flawless plan.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SciFiBoy)
    doing it would avoid the cuts and job losses...make the bankers and the super rich pay for there own crisis.
    How exactly did the rich cause this crisis again? :lolwut:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SciFiBoy)
    that post demonstrates your complete misunderstanding of socialism and the work of marx still further...
    since he hasnt said a thing about socialism/marx he couldnt really demonstrate his misconception of dialectical materialist thought

    however, I agree that the argument "university for everybody doesnt work because it decreases the worth of the degree" is completely .. well.. I cant decide between insulting you and actually talking about the argument itself :/

    if "everybody" went to university (let's say (very optimistic) 55% of the population is intelectual capable and has a glimpse of motivation for higher education ?) that would obviously worsen the chances for somebody with a bad grade in a somehow less sought after course to get a well paid job.
    well, what's your problem? it would enormously strengthen the overall capability of the economy to innovate and to produce something the world needs and wants to buy (besides financial products)

    there is no reasonable point in reducing the overall number of students in a macroeconomic view on the economy
    (of course, there is a pont when the money and time isnt well-spent anymore, when you just do not need anymore well educated, well trained highly skilled people, but I am quite sure that the UK (even less so Germany) has reached this point yet or is going to reach it in several years (if ever))

    the only argument against increasing the number of students is that it might worsen YOUR chances to get a job .. well, maybe you've been too lazy, and should have worked harder then your degree would be worth something no matter how many other engineers, economists there are .. :O

    higher education is a right and not a privilege, it is a RIGHT to receive the best possible education provided you're smart and willing to learn and to put a lot of effort into your studies. it is not a privilege, since priviledge signifies something that is given to some chosen people, a small number of aristocratic *****

    actually, I think it is even a DUTY to receive the best possible education (but that might be only my personal opinion, since I am quite a perfectionist elitist )
    however, it is clearly the duty of the state to encourage as many people as possible to increase their knowledge and productivity.. it's the stat's duty towards following generations because without these students even the growing working age population of the UK wont be able to support the even faster growing number of pensioners
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ocassus)
    Based on the fact that a University degree devalues the more people have them?
    I take issue with this point. It might decrease market value (supply/demand shizz) but it doesn't decrease the intellectual value.
    Which IMO is the most important thing.

    Would you rather have a country where the majority of people are educated to GCSE level, or degree level, in various fields?

    If it's GCSE, then we have some serious differences of opinion.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SciFiBoy)
    doing it would avoid the cuts and job losses...make the bankers and the super rich pay for there own crisis.
    I can only talk about Germany but "taxing the super rich" (like 60% taxation above 250 000€ income?) wouldnt even bring enough revenue (ignoring all scientific data about how destructive increases in taxation are on the actual revenue and economic growth) to pay for one tenth of the bailout of Hypo Real Estate ("our" small scale version of Anglo irish bank )

    and again, how have the rich caused the crisis? havent "they" lost a good deal of their money? well, many havent because they are apparently smarter than some of the less rich If I remember it correctly there are only old and poor pensioners complaining in talk-shows how they've lost all their savings in Lehman Brother's call-options backed collateralized CDS debt obligations certificats.. oh these stupid and GREEDY old ladies!

    no irony here .. there are no super rich people who could have caused a world wide crisis because they were greedy or just have a lot of fun seeing the world going down in flames or whatever you imagine (conspiracy of the rich .. well we've got some sad experiences with such conspiracy theories over here in Germany, ... does that ring any bells, anyone?)

    the crisis was caused by greedy small-scale investors (for example old pensioners, although one has to say in their defence that they didnt understand a word of the contracts they signed...), home buyers in America, Ireland, the UK, just everyday-greedy people, like you and me (well i am actually not that greedy)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Captain92)
    I take issue with this point. It might decrease market value (supply/demand shizz) but it doesn't decrease the intellectual value.
    Which IMO is the most important thing.

    Would you rather have a country where the majority of people are educated to GCSE level, or degree level, in various fields?

    If it's GCSE, then we have some serious differences of opinion.
    thanks for expressing something I tried to explain on about one page in 5 simple sentences
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sav)
    Thus driving the wealthy and wealth creation out of the country, damaging the economy for everybody else. Yes, flawless plan.
    Yeah, and how much of this 'wealth' do you, personally, actually see?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Captain92)
    I take issue with this point. It might decrease market value (supply/demand shizz) but it doesn't decrease the intellectual value.
    Which IMO is the most important thing.

    Would you rather have a country where the majority of people are educated to GCSE level, or degree level, in various fields?

    If it's GCSE, then we have some serious differences of opinion.
    I would like our country to all be educated at A-level as a minimum standard. However a degree is something people should expect to be able to take and then get a decent job with. That will not happen with so many degrees around...
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bax-man)
    Do you have a basic conception of what value is and how it relates to economics (the allocation of scarce resources)?




    Except it's entirely untrue. And yes, everyone is greedy because everyone pursues their own subjective self-interest, rather than the interests of others. This is praxeologically true. Even the giver to charity does this - give he subjectively values the help he gives to charity more than he values what he would have otherwise done with the money, he is acting in his own self-interest in maximizing the achievement of his preferences.
    I've long argued this. QFT +rep
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Assassnum)
    thanks for expressing something I tried to explain on about one page in 5 simple sentences
    Always glad to help out
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SciFiBoy)
    it would only cost £1.6bn a year to scrap tuiton fees, the same we spend per year on Trident, so why are you and the cabinet telling us its unaffordable? do you think the public are stupid?
    You seem to want everybody but you to pay for your university education.
    get real.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mathmagician)
    You seem to want everybody but you to pay for your university education.
    get real.
    moron, my proposals wouldnt even be able to be brought in to benefit me personally, thats not the ****ing point, its about the principle of the right to free education, unlike capitalists I dont view everything on the basis of "How does this benefit me or make me richer", its an alien concept to the kind of scum who lack compassion im sure, but somethings are more important than ****ing money!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SciFiBoy)
    moron, my proposals wouldnt even be able to be brought in to benefit me personally, thats not the ****ing point, its about the principle of the right to free education, unlike capitalists I dont view everything on the basis of "How does this benefit me or make me richer", its an alien concept to the kind of scum who lack compassion im sure, but somethings are more important than ****ing money!
    The right to free education, that sounds reasonable but where do you draw the line?
    Degrees cost far too much to give everyone one for free, so I think degrees should be at least partially paid for by the individual. It's the student who will benefit in the long run, provided they chose a degree that makes them more employable.
    You argue other people should pay higher tax, I see that as being far more unfair that people paying for an education that will mainly benefit them.
    It's a nice touch calling peole who argue against you 'scum who lack compassion', so why don't you have comassion for the taxpayer who'd have to pay more tax under your proposal to maintain funding for the HE budget. Everyone is going to suffer under the cuts so why shouldn't students, especially in the form of repayments when they're earning reasonable money.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mathmagician)
    The right to free education, that sounds reasonable but where do you draw the line?
    Degrees cost far too much to give everyone one for free, so I think degrees should be at least partially paid for by the individual. It's the student who will benefit in the long run, provided they chose a degree that makes them more employable.
    You argue other people should pay higher tax, I see that as being far more unfair that people paying for an education that will mainly benefit them.
    It's a nice touch calling peole who argue against you 'scum who lack compassion', so why don't you have comassion for the taxpayer who'd have to pay more tax under your proposal to maintain funding for the HE budget. Everyone is going to suffer under the cuts so why shouldn't students, especially in the form of repayments when they're earning reasonable money.
    (I am quite sure that "the taxpayer" or at least those who would have to pay more in any socialist plans to scrap tuition fees, have studied themselves, so there is no real difference between "I pay my tuition fees" and "I pay taxes for tuition for me and other people")

    My point is not "I dont want to pay for my education" but "if there is only one intelligent 'poor' person who is discouraged to study because of (rising) tuition fees then we have a serious problem with justice"
    and I have read several articles and studies all saying that poor people are more deterred by higher fees than richer students even though they dont have to pay them upfront .... I think that's not just to indirectly psychologically discriminate against less well off students
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Assassnum)
    (I am quite sure that "the taxpayer" or at least those who would have to pay more in any socialist plans to scrap tuition fees, have studied themselves, so there is no real difference between "I pay my tuition fees" and "I pay taxes for tuition for me and other people")

    My point is not "I dont want to pay for my education" but "if there is only one intelligent 'poor' person who is discouraged to study because of (rising) tuition fees then we have a serious problem with justice"
    and I have read several articles and studies all saying that poor people are more deterred by higher fees than richer students even though they dont have to pay them upfront .... I think that's not just to indirectly psychologically discriminate against less well off students
    Poor people being discouraged is just a ridiculous argument, pretty much everyone takes out the full loans when they go to university so they're no worse off. They even get reasonably large grants which puts them better off that quite a lot of students from higher income families. If they had the slighest bit of intelligence and planned to do a degree that makes you employable i can't see why they'd be discouraged. The only people who should be discouraged are the people who want to go to university for the sake of it and come out with a **** degree, and I welcome this.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SciFiBoy)
    doing it would avoid the cuts and job losses...make the bankers and the super rich pay for there own crisis.
    Did I miss the period during which everybody paying the higher rate tax turned into bankers?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Assassnum)
    since he hasnt said a thing about socialism/marx he couldnt really demonstrate his misconception of dialectical materialist thought

    however, I agree that the argument "university for everybody doesnt work because it decreases the worth of the degree" is completely .. well.. I cant decide between insulting you and actually talking about the argument itself :/

    if "everybody" went to university (let's say (very optimistic) 55% of the population is intelectual capable and has a glimpse of motivation for higher education ?) that would obviously worsen the chances for somebody with a bad grade in a somehow less sought after course to get a well paid job.
    well, what's your problem? it would enormously strengthen the overall capability of the economy to innovate and to produce something the world needs and wants to buy (besides financial products)

    there is no reasonable point in reducing the overall number of students in a macroeconomic view on the economy
    (of course, there is a pont when the money and time isnt well-spent anymore, when you just do not need anymore well educated, well trained highly skilled people, but I am quite sure that the UK (even less so Germany) has reached this point yet or is going to reach it in several years (if ever))

    the only argument against increasing the number of students is that it might worsen YOUR chances to get a job .. well, maybe you've been too lazy, and should have worked harder then your degree would be worth something no matter how many other engineers, economists there are .. :O

    higher education is a right and not a privilege, it is a RIGHT to receive the best possible education provided you're smart and willing to learn and to put a lot of effort into your studies. it is not a privilege, since priviledge signifies something that is given to some chosen people, a small number of aristocratic *****

    actually, I think it is even a DUTY to receive the best possible education (but that might be only my personal opinion, since I am quite a perfectionist elitist )
    however, it is clearly the duty of the state to encourage as many people as possible to increase their knowledge and productivity.. it's the stat's duty towards following generations because without these students even the growing working age population of the UK wont be able to support the even faster growing number of pensioners
    First, you've got your ideas a little mixed up there, a right is given, a privilege is gained.
    Second, everyone has a right to basic education in order to live a normal life in society, but higher education is a privilege that only the most academically gifted and motivated should gain.
    And third, our society is based on competition so the value of a certain degree is certainly influenced by its scarcity.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Assassnum)
    if "everybody" went to university (let's say (very optimistic) 55% of the population is intelectual capable and has a glimpse of motivation for higher education ?) that would obviously worsen the chances for somebody with a bad grade in a somehow less sought after course to get a well paid job.
    well, what's your problem? it would enormously strengthen the overall capability of the economy to innovate and to produce something the world needs and wants to buy (besides financial products)

    there is no reasonable point in reducing the overall number of students in a macroeconomic view on the economy
    (of course, there is a pont when the money and time isnt well-spent anymore, when you just do not need anymore well educated, well trained highly skilled people, but I am quite sure that the UK (even less so Germany) has reached this point yet or is going to reach it in several years (if ever))

    the only argument against increasing the number of students is that it might worsen YOUR chances to get a job .. well, maybe you've been too lazy, and should have worked harder then your degree would be worth something no matter how many other engineers, economists there are .. :O
    There are jobs in the UK that do not degree level skill to be able to do. However, the more and more people you send to university, the more of these jobs need a degree - because it means that the people without a degree are seen an incompetent and therefore unemployable.

    University is not beneficial for everyone, and the push to get more and more people into higher education means that those without a degree suffer comparatively. It means they will miss out on jobs that do not need degree-level skills. Or, if they do choose to go to university to avoid the disadvantage, they have missed out on 3 years pay, 3 years experience, 3 years of promotion opportunity. Furthermore, they will have some debts to pay because of living costs.

    Having everyone go to university is a stupid and unworkable scenario, all you do is move the bar ever higher. Employers do not generally look for specific skills in a degree, but rigour as a show of general intelligence and competence, along with other transferrable skills. Thousands more people knowing Latin or medieval history benefits the economy in no way shape or form, for example. It is a personal gain and as such a person should pay for it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vlad_x2)
    First, you've got your ideas a little mixed up there, a right is given, a privilege is gained.
    Second, everyone has a right to basic education in order to live a normal life in society, but higher education is a privilege that only the most academically gifted and motivated should gain.
    And third, our society is based on competition so the value of a certain degree is certainly influenced by its scarcity.
    well, I think the only thing "mixed up" here are our different definitions of "most academically gifted" I would lower the bar, you might raise it, in comparison to nowadays levels

    I certainly wont disagree with you on the "competitive society" (and I completely agree with anybody on the tremendous advantages a competitive society delivers for everybody), however, this time it's you who has got some things mixed up.

    I am talking about the value of a degree on society level (which, of course also declines, but I am convinced that we have not yet reached the tipping point where the time, money and effort spent doesnt outweigh the eonomic advantages)
    you're talking about the value for the individual, therefore, again, for YOU personally an economics degree becomes worth less with everybody else having one. not for society. only for you (you greedy imperialist )

    you're talking about comparative gains, I am talking about absolut gains.

    I think for capitalism and its moral grounding it is enormously important to talk about absolut gains for society AND about individual advantages. I am in favour of individualism, not (pure) egoism.

    I am sure that having studied a degree course (no matter which one) does give you "something" for your life, more than only the economic advantage. something an entirely vocational training cant give you.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.