Slim Pickings For Graduates

[weebag]

It's not a false assumption.

The Romans... well, they went the way of the dodo a couple of millenia back. Their great public infrastructure was really sustainable, wasn't it?

Jesus, its Injin 2, wthout as much arrogance!

Funny how these anti-statists all live in a state. Off you pop to somalia and see how you get on.

[clubberdude]

Right.

Todays graduates have nothing extra to offer (in general) - therefore they are not worth anything extra over people who didn't bother going to university and have therefore malinvested their time.

Erm - so what?

People make bad bets.

Thats not strictly true.

I went to university, had a good time, and got a good degree, plus an MSc, and am working somewhere i've always wanted to work, in a good, interesting job, with good prospects, and a possible promotion in the near future.

I certainly wouldn't be there now had I not had gone to university.

There are far too many broad generalisations on this forum.

[cartimandua51]

Absolute tosh. "Start from the assumption...", but what if it's a false assumption?

In the example you give, you have to also assume that the (economic) benefit of the action to the group is more than the cost of the undertaking. Otherwise, the infrastructure would never be built. What if "the group" does not have the money, but damage to the greater part of society will occur at some time? Like the situation in London in the 1800's; cholera, and the pressing need to build sewers. The Victorians (and even the Romans before them) understood "Public Works" very well, and championed many; which unless they are maintained, would bring disaster on us. Is that cost "economically productive" in your definitions?

I recently read the obituary of Ralf Darendorf in The Economist. This extract seems apposite:

The advancing Red army eventually freed both him and Germany. For a while, there was neither government nor rules. With a band of young friends, he looted the local shops in Berlin. Through his long and stellar academic career, on his professorial shelves at Tübingen, Konstanz, Columbia, Harvard and the London School of Economics, he kept the few slim volumes of romantic poetry he had filched then, when he suddenly found himself free to take everything, but with almost nothing to take. This, he taught later, was “entitlement without provisionsâ€.

Liberty, he had discovered the hard way, needed institutions to preserve it. All the apparatus of civil society—courts, parliament, written constitutions, citizenship—was needed to ensure, in a favourite phrase, the greatest number of “life-chancesâ€, or choices, for everyone. And the nation state, though he was well aware of its parochial and xenophobic limitations, seemed to be liberty’s best incubator.

Few Libertarians have ever had the dubious privilege of living in a world where the State's monopoly on use of force has completely broken down. Anyone for a trip to Somalia?

[Injin]

I recently read the obituary of Ralf Darendorf in The Economist. This extract seems apposite:

The advancing Red army eventually freed both him and Germany. For a while, there was neither government nor rules. With a band of young friends, he looted the local shops in Berlin. Through his long and stellar academic career, on his professorial shelves at Tübingen, Konstanz, Columbia, Harvard and the London School of Economics, he kept the few slim volumes of romantic poetry he had filched then, when he suddenly found himself free to take everything, but with almost nothing to take. This, he taught later, was “entitlement without provisionsâ€.

Liberty, he had discovered the hard way, needed institutions to preserve it. All the apparatus of civil society—courts, parliament, written constitutions, citizenship—was needed to ensure, in a favourite phrase, the greatest number of “life-chancesâ€, or choices, for everyone. And the nation state, though he was well aware of its parochial and xenophobic limitations, seemed to be liberty’s best incubator.

Few Libertarians have ever had the dubious privilege of living in a world where the State's monopoly on use of force has completely broken down. Anyone for a trip to Somalia?

Yay!

Two mentions of Somalia!

Can people who bring up Somalia please first google around the subject - they are doing better without a government than when they had one.

[Beggar Thy Children]

You can learn everything on the job.

OK...

However if I were having heart surgery I would want to make sure the guy had done it at least a dozen times before.

It's OK, he can learn on the job.

You can be his first patient.

[Johnny Storm]

Getting back to the topic -anyone who goes to university to get a higher paying job is a tool. You should go to university to get pissed, get ******ed out of your mind on strong drugs and shag birds - that is money that is never wasted.

Why do you need to go to university to do those things? Surely you'd be better off with a low paid job getting some money, experience and still doing the above?

Can people who bring up Somalia please first google around the subject - they are doing better without a government than when they had one.

Can people who think they are doing better without a government go and live there. Yes Injin that would be you.

Edited July 4, 2009 by Johnny Storm

[Scunnered]

There are far too many broad generalisations on this forum.

Heh.

[weebag]

Yay!

Two mentions of Somalia!

Can people who bring up Somalia please first google around the subject - they are doing better without a government than when they had one.

Who is 'they'? The pirates?

Also, how good was their government?

Edit:

Why dont you go there Injin? Prefect for you, no?

Or do you like the infrastructure that you have in the UK?

You are lucky that generally we protect the weak in the UK.

Edited July 4, 2009 by weebag

[corevalue]

It's not a false assumption.

The Romans... well, they went the way of the dodo a couple of millenia back. Their great public infrastructure was really sustainable, wasn't it?

The Roman aquaduct in Seville, still in use recently, bringing fresh water into the city. I have often wondered how the Romans raised the money for these works. We know of their taxation from the bible, but was there great unpopularity amongst the plebians about that, or did they acknowledge that they did bring a greater good into the society?

[cartimandua51]

The Roman aquaduct in Seville, still in use recently, bringing fresh water into the city. I have often wondered how the Romans raised the money for these works. We know of their taxation from the bible, but was there great unpopularity amongst the plebians about that, or did they acknowledge that they did bring a greater good into the society?

My memory of Roman Economic History is a bit hazy; but IIRC most of the works were done by the Army - that's where the engineers were, and as every commander knows, if your men aren't fighting the enemy then you need to keep them busy and tired or you'll have trouble!

And once people had got used to being part of the Roman Empire, paying to keep the Army defending you against the German tribes / Picts/ Scots/Berbers or whoever was seen as a reasonable deal. Look at the fuss the Brits made when the Roman Army pulled out in 410! ( & with reason - again, IIRC it only took about 20 years to revert to subsistence farming once the Roman infrastucture had gone)

[Tomlad]

Nobody said we don't need them, just that if they are employed by the public sector rather than the private sector (as are some teachers and doctors) they are not economically productive.

This government is presently pursuing a policy of employing people in the public sector (often on higher wages than the private sector)by borrowing money in the hopes that at some time in the future the private sector will have grown to a large enough extent to pay off any excess debt accumulated now. The consequences of this policy will prove disastrous in the medium term!

Right...so if the government pays a company to employ teachers they are economically productive?

People need to understand something very basic. Companies exist to make money. Simple as.

If you pay tax payers money to a company, running a public service, the tax payer looses out. Otherwise the company would not make money, so it wouldn't want the contract.

You people sit and winge, but what did you do to help the country today?

[Tomlad]

Economically productive = people who don't cost me anything.

The road network is a nice example to use. Start from the assumption that if an action (e.g. roadbuilding) is beneficial to a group of people, and they can afford to do it, then they will. This would be economically productive roadbuilding.

By the same logic if you have to fund road building and maintenance by coercion (i.e. tax) then it is either not beneficial or unaffordable. This is economically unproductive and unsustainable road building.

I've had the same argument with someone about the police. He claims that they are essential to producing an environment conducive to doing business and are therefore economically productive. This is obviously nonsense, as the default situation is an environment conducive to doing business (why wouldn't it be?). If business etc. thought a police force was beneficial AND they could afford it then you wouldn't need to tax them to pay for it.

Go and watch the news, take a look out of your window, have a look at your wage slip to see how much the government steal from you every month and find out how much we collectively, as a nation, owe. Then make the judgement - is the infrastructure built by the so-called public sector sustainable, or unsustainable?

So we don't need police? Your actually crackers aren't you?

I bet you'd soon dial 999 if you were in a spot of trouble.

"Default situation is an environment conducive to doing business" What utter ********! Have you ever seen what happens when law and order brakes down? Just look at what hurrican katrina did!

Edited July 4, 2009 by Tomlad

[bateman]

Why do you need to go to university to do those things? Surely you'd be better off with a low paid job getting some money, experience and still doing the above?

If you have job you have to get out of bed and go to work.

At university you don't have to get up and, even better, you are surrounded by other likeminded people.

[bateman]

the default situation is an environment conducive to doing business (why wouldn't it be?).

Of course!

There are loads of places you can move to with very low taxation and regulation - you should move there - these countries are usually known as the third world

Edited July 5, 2009 by bateman

[cells]

OK...

It's OK, he can learn on the job.

You can be his first patient.

what is special about a university that you couldn't learn yourself with some books at a business?

do you think Einstein was taught his discoveries by a university or did he figure them out himself?

i went to university and i can say perhaps 80% plus of my class taught themselves more so than the lecturers taught us. we could have done it anywhere with access to books and the net. in the middle of the Amazon if you liked.

everything can be learnt "on the job". that doesn't mean you learn to be a doctor by practising to cut people up. it means you learn to be a doctor by working under a doctor for years, learning and watching off him. also reading and teaching yourself.

i repeat again, EERYTHING CAN BE LEARNT ON THE JOB

[cells]

My memory of Roman Economic History is a bit hazy; but IIRC most of the works were done by the Army - that's where the engineers were, and as every commander knows, if your men aren't fighting the enemy then you need to keep them busy and tired or you'll have trouble!

And once people had got used to being part of the Roman Empire, paying to keep the Army defending you against the German tribes / Picts/ Scots/Berbers or whoever was seen as a reasonable deal. Look at the fuss the Brits made when the Roman Army pulled out in 410! ( & with reason - again, IIRC it only took about 20 years to revert to subsistence farming once the Roman infrastucture had gone)

Didn't they have slaves?

Not difficult to build labour intensive things when labour is “freeâ€.

[Number79]

My memory of Roman Economic History is a bit hazy; but IIRC most of the works were done by the Army - that's where the engineers were, and as every commander knows, if your men aren't fighting the enemy then you need to keep them busy and tired or you'll have trouble!

And once people had got used to being part of the Roman Empire, paying to keep the Army defending you against the German tribes / Picts/ Scots/Berbers or whoever was seen as a reasonable deal. Look at the fuss the Brits made when the Roman Army pulled out in 410! ( & with reason - again, IIRC it only took about 20 years to revert to subsistence farming once the Roman infrastucture had gone)

not quite. The engineers were in the army but much of the labour for civil projects came from tradesmen and paid workers/slaves. There is a shocking ammount of roman infrastructure either still in place/use or that has been modified.

The romans also had their own currency collapses. Their currency was debased as the ammount of gold/silver in the coins was reduced. Then cheaper metals were used and then the coins were made smaller. The romans had their booms and busts and taxation problems aswell. The romans, to stave of deflation, made it punishable by death to horde coins.

[frozen_out]

So we don't need police? Your actually crackers aren't you?

I bet you'd soon dial 999 if you were in a spot of trouble.

"Default situation is an environment conducive to doing business" What utter ********! Have you ever seen what happens when law and order brakes down? Just look at what hurrican katrina did!

It's amazing just how badly people miss the point when it comes to this subject. I'm not arguing that the police are or aren't beneficial - simply that IF they are beneficial AND we can afford them then there would be no need to tax us to pay for them. Therefore they are either not beneficial or we can't afford them.

The big mistake people make when thinking or debating about this is that they simply extrapolate from the situation we are in now, without appreciating that all the infrastructure we have that was built with public money is simply the apparatus of state - built purposely with the aim of keeping people serving the state. You're starting your argument from a place where you're already caged and enslaved. Strip all that away and you'll see that people got along just fine without it, and in many cases were better off.

Hurricane Katrina is a nice example, not of what happens when 'law and order' (in New Orleans ) breaks down, but what happens when a few hundred thousand people who have been oppressed and purposely kept poor by the state for

the last few hundred years are suddenly all set free at the same time. They go ******* nuts.

Of course!

There are loads of places you can move to with very low taxation and regulation - you should move there - these countries are usually known as the third world

And if you hadn't noticed this forum is full of threads bemoaning the brain drain to such 'third world' countries. Funny that, eh?

Edited July 5, 2009 by frozen_out

[weebag]

Hurricane Katrina is a nice example, not of what happens when 'law and order' (in New Orleans ) breaks down, but what happens when a few hundred thousand people who have been oppressed and purposely kept poor by the state for

the last few hundred years are suddenly all set free at the same time. They go ******* nuts.

Two totally different perspectives on one event.

Neither can be proved right or wrong.

I wonder HOW the state has kept these people poor?

So, direct question. Would you rather the police were disbanded or kept?

[Number79]

Two totally different perspectives on one event.

Neither can be proved right or wrong.

I wonder HOW the state has kept these people poor?

So, direct question. Would you rather the police were disbanded or kept?

the question is actually not that direct.

do you mean the police man, the bobby on the beat there to protect the people and uphold the law of the land (common law). Policing by the people?

or do you mean police officers, there to uphold statutes and generate revenue for uk ltd?

Personally, I say that we need police men but should disband the army of officers.

[weebag]

the question is actually not that direct.

do you mean the police man, the bobby on the beat there to protect the people and uphold the law of the land (common law). Policing by the people?

or do you mean police officers, there to uphold statutes and generate revenue for uk ltd?

Personally, I say that we need police men but should disband the army of officers.

So, police officers are not there to protect the people? How so?

If someone commits murder, who should investigate? Is finding (and subsequently removing the murderers liberty) not protecting the people?

[Number79]

So, police officers are not there to protect the people? How so?

If someone commits murder, who should investigate? Is finding (and subsequently removing the murderers liberty) not protecting the people?

a police man and a police officer are two very different things.

A murderer is arrested by a policeman for breaking the law. He is tried under common law in a court of the land and punished accordingly.

A speeding motorist is dealt with by a police officer upholding the statutes of the state, can only face a state court and is often fined. Police officers generate revenue.

The uk is a country that has common law which must be abided by the men and women, the laws of right and wrong.

The uk is also a company run under contract law whereby every person is expected to agree the terms and breech of contract brings fines and punishment.

Many police do not understand the true difference between statutes and law nor the difference between what they are doing. On the ground, the bloke in uniform is doing the job but in law and in fact things are very different.

[Abstra]

My memory of Roman Economic History is a bit hazy; but IIRC most of the works were done by the Army - that's where the engineers were, and as every commander knows, if your men aren't fighting the enemy then you need to keep them busy and tired or you'll have trouble!

And once people had got used to being part of the Roman Empire, paying to keep the Army defending you against the German tribes / Picts/ Scots/Berbers or whoever was seen as a reasonable deal. Look at the fuss the Brits made when the Roman Army pulled out in 410! ( & with reason - again, IIRC it only took about 20 years to revert to subsistence farming once the Roman infrastucture had gone)

They would have been left with no Government or Banking system or economy. It was grow your own time.

[Scunnered]

i repeat again, EERYTHING CAN BE LEARNT ON THE JOB

How about written Chinese or advanced mathematics?

[Sinking Feeling]

Right...so if the government pays a company to employ teachers they are economically productive?

People need to understand something very basic. Companies exist to make money. Simple as.

If you pay tax payers money to a company, running a public service, the tax payer looses out. Otherwise the company would not make money, so it wouldn't want the contract.

You people sit and winge, but what did you do to help the country today?

No, if a government pays a company to do work the employees are government contractors.

At the end of the day the economic system is a big game with rules played internationally with pointless metrics. The problem is that the public sector simply recycles the county's wealth and does not add anything to these metrics.