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

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I am happy to pay for my education as long as it doesnt get to a wopping £9000! someone in another thread suggested that it should be free for subjects such as 'chemistry' or 'physics' and people doing social science and arts should pay more, which i find is unfair and ridiculous, a course is a course it should be the same reguardless of subject matter.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by no-fat-chicks)
    I agree that uni shouldn't be free but I am well against the rise in tuition fees. Keep them as they are.
    I agree
    Offline

    16
    (Original post by JohnDoldon)
    ever heard of positive externalities? A high level of education benefits the entire economy and thus you as well and if you are smart enough you can even capitalise on it.
    The economy benefits from having mobile workers (drive to work) & businesses using more efficient transport. Should we subsidize cars too?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Great_One)
    Haha very good. With a bit more practice you could be quite effective, you make some good points so keep working at it and you never know where you might end up .
    if you go to my blog (see signature) and look up the article "Student Protests – Raising A New Generation of Debtors" you ll find a more profound line of argumentation


    (Original post by Lord Hysteria)
    The economy benefits from having mobile workers (drive to work) & businesses using more efficient transport. Should we subsidize cars too?
    Don't think your first argument links with the second. If you talk about a more efficient infrastructure, which part of it are roads, then certanly yes. If you look at emerging economies such as Brazil, India or China the biggest threat to continued growth is a lacking infrastructure. And for western economies the number one infrastructure is education, if you cut that you commit economic suicide.

    Now one doesn't have to go from one extrem of "capitalist anarchism" to communism. The state has to provide the framework so that an economy can function efficiently, and it should be obvious that getting cars for free is not part of that framework
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Hysteria)
    The economy benefits from having mobile workers (drive to work) & businesses using more efficient transport. Should we subsidize cars too?
    Subsidizing cars would be pointless as they're horribly inefficient. Create a large, free public transport network, with a focus on punctuality and minimal waste (and if you act like a **** the drive can kick you off), and you might be onto something. The bus where I live is £4 each way!
    Offline

    16
    (Original post by JohnDoldon)
    Don't think your first argument links with the second. If you talk about a more efficient infrastructure, which part of it are roads, then certanly yes. If you look at emerging economies such as Brazil, India or China the biggest threat to continued growth is a lacking infrastructure. And for western economies the number one infrastructure is education, if you cut that you commit economic suicide.

    Now one doesn't have to go from one extrem of "capitalist anarchism" to communism. The state has to provide the framework so that an economy can function efficiently, and it should be obvious that getting cars for free is not part of that framework
    There are several suppositions here, but that user referred to the positive externalities argument. If that argument applies to one thing, then it must apply to another?

    Moreover, you seem to think that without government we just wouldn't have education. Or the infrastructure would go be gone ... this is just nonsense.
    Offline

    16
    (Original post by fist)
    Subsidizing cars would be pointless as they're horribly inefficient. Create a large, free public transport network, with a focus on punctuality and minimal waste (and if you act like a **** the drive can kick you off), and you might be onto something. The bus where I live is £4 each way!
    I am not sure what you're saying here exactly. I think the +ve externalites argument is ridiculous. To say that some government body will increase those beneficial consequences is lovely, but it fails to grasp how those consequences came to be in the first place. Adam Smith said:

    He intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other eases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was no part of it. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it.
    — Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Great_One)
    University should not be free. IF it was it would need very high taxes and why should a cleaner on a low wage pay for your education. The same applies to rich people why should a rich person whos worked his whole life pay for your education. Thats why i'm a capitalist because i believe people should capitalise on things and make their own money instead of spending other peoples money.
    Surely as a capitalist you'll appreciate the benefits of an educated workforce non?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:





















    Somehow, I disagree with you ! Free Education !
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Hysteria)
    There are several suppositions here, but that user referred to the positive externalities argument. If that argument applies to one thing, then it must apply to another?

    Moreover, you seem to think that without government we just wouldn't have education. Or the infrastructure would go be gone ... this is just nonsense.
    positive externalities apply to goods, so called free goods, that cannot be limited in their consumption, in consequence not only the person who puts up for the resources benefits from the good but also so called "free-riders" that did not need to put in any ressources

    a car is clearly a private good and does not create any benefit for anybody other that the owner, as it is not freely accessible (if anything it creates negative externalities as the owner of the car is not adequately charged for emissions, noise, hazard that the car causes)

    I have not said that without goverment there wouldn't be any infrastructure/ education. My argument is that through the positive externalities the government creates more wealth than what they put in and it does not only benefit the person who studies but the broader economy and given that the UK is a knowledge based economy these effects would be probably greater than in an industrial economy.

    If you privatise infrastructure, then obvioulsy the initiator will try to internalise the externalities, so that only he will benefits from the good, which in turn leads to a partial break down of the market.

    As such your Adam Smith example is wrong in these markets, it's long known that there are some areas where the market mechanism doesn t work and that's where the state has a role. What exactly that is is a question, and it's probably rather less than more, but certainly education is one part of it, just look at turkey, there the private education system clearly has failed.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by F i s)
    He's not trolling. He's just really, really, really stupid. Seriously, just go through the UK Politics forum and look at some of his posts - he's just a miracle of ill informed stupidity. It's genuinely quite comical.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Next Left)
    He's not trolling. He's just really, really, really stupid. Seriously, just go through the UK Politics forum and look at some of his posts - he's just a miracle of ill informed stupidity. It's genuinely quite comical.
    I have seen a few of his previous posts and just wonder how people like that can have any dignity.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Great_One)
    University should not be free. IF it was it would need very high taxes and why should a cleaner on a low wage pay for your education. The same applies to rich people why should a rich person whos worked his whole life pay for your education. Thats why i'm a capitalist because i believe people should capitalise on things and make their own money instead of spending other peoples money.
    Why should a person on a high wage pay for a cleaners tax credits?
    Why should a cleaner pay for a someone without a job to get cancer treatment?
    Offline

    16
    (Original post by JohnDoldon)
    positive externalities apply to goods, so called free goods, that cannot be limited in their consumption, in consequence not only the person who puts up for the resources benefits from the good but also so called "free-riders" that did not need to put in any ressources

    a car is clearly a private good and does not create any benefit for anybody other that the owner, as it is not freely accessible (if anything it creates negative externalities as the owner of the car is not adequately charged for emissions, noise, hazard that the car causes)
    Positive externalities are when third parties gets some kind of benefit even though they were not directly involved with that transaction. We both agree this definition? The traditional economic view is that government ought to intervene and somehow intensify the positive externalities, through subsidization, for instance. When it comes to cars, there is an obvious advantage in having an economy where people use more efficient means of transport. Workers, for instance, will be able to get work much quicker. I'll be able to visit shopping centres a lot more and so forth ... there is an obvious advantage - or positive externalities on society - in having cars.

    You say that cars are private goods, presumably implying that education is a public good. But that is economic nonsense. Moreover, I have never heard of any person, when asked why they're going to university, says "oh, it is for society". Education is no more a private good than cars. And yet one is subsidised and the other would be laughed at.

    I have not said that without goverment there wouldn't be any infrastructure/ education. My argument is that through the positive externalities the government creates more wealth than what they put in and it does not only benefit the person who studies but the broader economy and given that the UK is a knowledge based economy these effects would be probably greater than in an industrial economy.
    Firstly, government doesn't create any wealth. The only wealth that government acquires is through taxation, inflation or issuing bonds. The wealth comes from the machinery of the free-market.

    Secondly, education - in itself - isn't "valuable." People choose to study because they know it will increase their standards of living and help them move up the economic ladder. But that can only happen if the supply of graduates follows supply and demand. What is the value in education if the market is oversupplied with graduates? When government intervenes in the market it sends false signals to people. Thus, more-and-more people are filtered into what government wants. Since government is inefficient, we end up with an oversupply of graduates. This is why average wages of graduates have dropped, and people have to resort to doing a masters degree simply to compete with the oversupply. But why would government oversupply the market with graduates? The answer is so simple. It has nothing to do with economics, but politics. During elections, statistics about how 55%+ of all students have a degree - to the economically ignorant average chap - sounds like a general improvement in society. It doesn't matter whether it actually improves anything, but as long as it appears to improve. So, when it comes to education & government intervention in universities etc ..., it is influenced by politicians for when it comes to elections.

    If you privatise infrastructure, then obvioulsy the initiator will try to internalise the externalities, so that only he will benefits from the good, which in turn leads to a partial break down of the market.
    Arh! It is nice to see someone mention "internalising" externalities. But I am not sure how that breaks down the market? Are you trying to be dramatic?

    As such your Adam Smith example is wrong in these markets, it's long known that there are some areas where the market mechanism doesn t work and that's where the state has a role. What exactly that is is a question, and it's probably rather less than more, but certainly education is one part of it, just look at turkey, there the private education system clearly has failed.
    I am not sure how to respond to this. Implied in what you say is that there is "market failure" but there isn't "government failure" - after all, why would government be allowed to deal with "market failure" unless it doesn't fail? I disagree with both premises there, and I'd probably enjoying discussing it with you, but we'd be digressing this thread.
    Offline

    16
    (Original post by Law123mus)
    Why should a person on a high wage pay for a cleaners tax credits?
    Why should a cleaner pay for a someone without a job to get cancer treatment?
    Equally, why should a very poor cleaner - who has never been to university - suddenly realise she is forced to pay for other people to improve their economic lives!

    (Original post by Howard)
    Surely as a capitalist you'll appreciate the benefits of an educated workforce non?
    A complete non-sequitur.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Hysteria)
    Equally, why should a very poor cleaner - who has never been to university - suddenly realise she is forced to pay for other people to improve their economic lives!



    A complete non-sequitur.
    No one forced the cleaner not to go to uni. And if they couldn't go because it was too exspensive, then all the more reason for them to pay. At least if they have children then their kids will have a chance that they never had. At the end of the day, the more people we have going into higher education, the better it is for the economy as a whole. And in that case we should pay for students. Ok some people will not be pleased, but you can't please everyone can you. We can only do whats best for the economy and in the most fair way. Plus we don't have to increase taxes. We can keep them the way they are and cut other things the govt spends on that are less important. (there's plenty but i'm too ****ed to think of them lol)
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Why should the government pay for secondary school education, either? Or primary education? There is substantial benefit for society and the state if more people have a higher level of skill. Unless you think that nothing what so ever should be provided for the state, then you can not object to the state providing a service which is universally beneficial. Taxes wouldn't go up massively, either. £6 bn is the figure i'm aware it would cost to scrap tuition fees. Not impossible to collect in taxation, not even tough.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    It's not free. The average university graduate pays an extra £20,000 worth of tax over their lifetime (due to their graduate premium) - this more than adequately pays for their tuition - so why do they need to pay an EXTRA £9k a year?
    Offline

    16
    (Original post by Law123mus)
    No one forced the cleaner not to go to uni. And if they couldn't go because it was too exspensive, then all the more reason for them to pay. At least if they have children then their kids will have a chance that they never had. At the end of the day, the more people we have going into higher education, the better it is for the economy as a whole. And in that case we should pay for students. Ok some people will not be pleased, but you can't please everyone can you. We can only do whats best for the economy and in the most fair way. Plus we don't have to increase taxes. We can keep them the way they are and cut other things the govt spends on that are less important. (there's plenty but i'm too ****ed to think of them lol)
    What if the poor woman wasn't that smart or didn't wish to go to university? What if she is happy enough with her job and likes her work colleagues.

    You then come into her life, and order her to pay for what you think you're entitled to! My God!
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by The_Great_One)
    University should not be free. IF it was it would need very high taxes and why should a cleaner on a low wage pay for your education. The same applies to rich people why should a rich person whos worked his whole life pay for your education. Thats why i'm a capitalist because i believe people should capitalise on things and make their own money instead of spending other peoples money.
    Agreed, while i do not want to pay more, the graduate market is currently oversupllied and as such a 'price rise', may encourage some people tro not go to to university and accept the more meanial jobs, which then perhaps could reduce the need for immigration. I am all for people studying (i am a firm beliver that a smarter society is a better society), however right now that better society is not nessesarily a richer one. My only addage to the tuition fee bill would be that the highest 10% of achievers have vastly reduced fees, however we unfortunately live in a society which refuses to acknowlege that some people are more liekly to succeed than others.
 
 
 
  • 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
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
    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.