Cogs

You weren't listening very hard. The issue was that she had spent several years (as widely advocated here) not at university but instead getting enough experience in precarious temporary roles to warrant permanent FT appointment in the council. Which she was made redundant from as soon as she got it. Back down the ladder she goes to temporary retail work. You've misrepresented it completely. Her problem is now that the job she trained for no longer exists and probably won't come up again either. Furthermore, she also said that of the jobs she'd applied for only to get invited for a mere two interviews, the vast majority of them were in the private sector but she didn't get any of them.

When you are old enough to drink you'll realise what a stupid argument that is. Let me know if you want advice on shaving.

For those reasons?

The existence of C4G operations in the first place however...is it possible they have people to sell to? Gold is in a massive bubble, the only people who buy it are the same people who claim validation and buy more of it when it goes up in price. Just a little suspicious of any market where (1) everyone involved without exception claims to be some sort of insider with special knowledge and insight... it doesn't look like a functional market, particularly as the use of gold in electronics and particularly jewellery is declining, at this rate you might as well be speculating on oakleaves or seashells or something so long as all the other 'Conchbugs' agree with you I guess you are doing great business eh (2) the relied upon websites are as hysterical as Glenn Beck after sniffing poppers.Perhaps gold will go to the moon and cash will crumble into dust, I still think those observations are correct.

Er, is it not obvious why they claim what they do? Surprised the FSA haven't come after them actually. But please, patronise me some more. I'm just saying, people are very aware of gold having an exchange value.

Marx's book, Capital, is mostly about human nature. He certainly recognised what you are talking about, I'm not sure how many times it has to be said: Marxism has nothing to do with altruism or some unrealistic belief that people would turn against their own interests in a fit of generosity; I think you are talking about Injin-style utopian 'Free Marketism' there. From the POV of Marxism, it is capitalism that leads people to cut their own throats by way of being (as Tressell had it) Ragged Trousered Philanthropists, Marxism is about finally getting what is yours and keeping what is yours. Its people like Injin who want you to generously hand out gifts to other people so they don't have to work. Now you may disagree with other parts of Marx's programme, this isn't about the rights or wrongs of the whole theory, but your critique there is factually wrong.

Why wouldn't you? Shall we ignore Ludwig Von Mises because he spent his entire life in the public sector? Or question the objectivity of Objectivism when it turns out you cease to be an a recognised Objectivist if you refuse to sleep with Ayn Rand (which strikes me as a bit subjective). You know Pavlov's own dog was notoriously badly behaved, I guess the conditioned reflex is questionable on that basis. This is the ad hominem fallacy in its purest form. Biography is irrelevant. If you think otherwise perhaps you should provide us with your own so we can judge your claims against it. And it isn't an 'economics guide', you are so ignorant you don't even know what you are criticising.

The same is true of any asset class. In fact I think gold has far more exposure given the proliferation of gold 'converters' on many high streets that generally speaking (for obvious reasons) declare that gold is peaking...

I wonder what the wheeze will be this time? "Privatising" the treasury department that administers public ownership of the shares is my guess. We'll lose 27 billion but save 500k. The Age Of Austerity wins again.

Injin won't read Capital, The Manifesto or any other foundational economic/political/philosophical text that he doesn't know he will agree with well in advance. I believe his excuse last time was that he didn't read books by evil people.

The first and last decent self help book was written by Marcus Aurelius. And lets face it, when it came to handling serious stress, fear and real world problems, he has a level of experience nobody in the modern world has, even a 'motivational expert'. When your mate down the pub tells you to keep your chin up, its one thing. When the guy trying to hold the Roman empire together when its being attacked on all sides tells you to get a grip, stay focused and not let the bastards get to you, it carries a little more authority somehow.

An important insight when it comes to understanding the state, particularly, of the poor and why a thousand 'what I'd do if I were unemployed' type comments in The Telegraph are meaningless.

There never was a target of 50% of school leavers. This is an urban myth.

So the evidence 'for' is that there is a general but unstated consensus? The evidence against is actually the rest of your post to which we can also add imposing fees (odd way of 'forcing' people to attend isn't it). Sorry, this is just cobblers. The problem with the perceived lack of value of some degrees is that it is an example of a large number of people making economically sub-optimal decisions. Alas, this is a huge problem for the free marketeers who like to believe that everyone is a rational economic actor, so instead they call up into being a vague claim, constantly changing in its details, that rather than individual consumers making a choice in a free market of genuinely international scope, "the government" are compelling people, yet somehow we can't really say how... Meanwhile, back in the real world, if you want to know what has changed just look at who the average university student is.

Seen the sales volumes recently? They aren't.

How is the government 'pushing people' into degrees. Evidence please.

Well you are just restating what I already acknowledged, I don't believe this is the most important factor.

I don't think it will make any difference actually. The real perverse incentive is still there which is about being something and having something to do in life. The economic argument masks this, but basically I expect young women will no other options for the future will continue to pump out sprogs. A mother is something to be, its a role, its a job, it gives you some sort of standing in society, some women expect it will give their lives meaning. This why education and prospects delay motherhood, it only looks like its to do with money but it has more to do with identity and so on.Re; Dissident Junk; our society has also atomised since the 18th and 19th centuries, people knew who they were, knew what they were about, they went to church, lived with extended family and so on. Work, at least in identity terms, was more meaningful. Its one thing to work at the local factory if everyone else you know does, its quite another to stack shelves for a faceless American megacorp. So I don't think it necessarily is economic, it could as easily be social. I guess we'll find out anyway.

You think Billy Bragg would piss on Tony Blair if he was on fire? I don't think you really understand what you are talking about. Perhaps starting reading a newspaper. PS. The Daily Mail isn't a newspaper.

Samantha Cameron's parents did the same thing when she was 22. Keep this in mind when her hubby stages 'candid' photo shoots of them wearing M&S gear and pretending they have something in common with 99.9999% of people in this country.

What job could you ever apply for even in the boomtimes where there weren't that kind of odds? I don't imagine this would be different anywhere else either.

I was going to ask you if you'd talk about your own sister that way. Turns out you do!

Ironic that Charlie's mum lives in one of the ugliest houses in London.

Aneurin Bevan was a great man. I think its at this point we will have to accept our differences.

<br /><br /><br />I find this kind of argument hard to process. If I thought New Labour had any interest in socialism I'd have considered joining the party. I just thought they were bossy and scared of the Daily Mail to be honest with you. You are right about Polly btw, you'll notice she doesn't get a very smooth ride from Comments. Ironically she is indeed an aristocrat of sorts, thats why she is tolerated; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnold_Toynbee