Is this the end of liberalism?

[Wolfbeckett]

The entire "taxes are theft" is a completely idiotic and self-serving argument.
Next time : laws preventing murder are prison, because they are imposed to me without my approval and I can't get away from them !

/facepalm

Have you ever even heard of the initiation of force? Taxes and anti murder laws are not remotely comparable. Laws preventing murder are preventing people from initiating force against others, that is why they are inherently just. Taxes are a whole different category of laws, taxes are the government initiating force against you. We accept that some degree of that is necessary to have a stable society, almost everyone agrees that the government is necessary in some capacity. If you want to argue that college education should be one of those capacities, fine, make that argument. But don't sit there and tell me that the initiation of force (pay your taxes or we'll throw you in jail) isn't force. If you want to make your case you need to make it honestly.

 

[Hygro]

Socialism maybe the next economic order, but I suspect the new economy will be one we cannot have even imagined, like those who lived in the feudal era could not have imagined what capitalism would look like.

This I agree with, but I find it interesting that what capitalism grew out of was a very old existing commercial practice. Similarly, I wonder what existing institutions today will be the social mediations of the future.

 

[civman110]

@Wolfy

Well, federal taxes don't literally pay for things, and economically your income is higher from a more educated populace via their being aid to students, so what you're really saying is you don't like free money.

The US right now has more people with a university education than ever before, but the average income has been declining.

 

[Wolfbeckett]

So any service that you personally don't use shouldn't be tax funded?

Pretty much nothing in a developed country would work then.

Education and Healthcare should both be fundamental human rights.

That is a complete misrepresentation of what I said. Nowhere did I say that such services should not be tax funded. What I said was be honest about what's going on when they are tax funded, don't try to represent the government forcing us to pay for things as anything other than force. Whether or not those things are worthwhile enough to justify that use of force is a completely separate argument that I did not make.

 

[Hygro]

That is absolutely not true. The US right now has more people with a university education than ever before, but the average income has been declining.

Median incomes are declining, average incomes are going way up. The split would be even worse if we weren't as educated. He's still getting free money.

 

[jackelgull]

This I agree with, but I find it interesting that what capitalism grew out of was a very old existing commercial practice. Similarly, I wonder what existing institutions today will be the social mediations of the future.

I will venture a guess that if a new economy is to spawn, it will be a product of the information age, and just be the natural evolution of current processes which turn information into money. In the future, information will be the economy.

 

[Hygro]

I wouldn't be surprised if that's the case already and we're simply just not a few hundred years out to have the analysis. Capitalism preceded its economic descriptors (Adam Smith) and its definition (Karl Marx) by centuries.

 

[jackelgull]

I wouldn't be surprised if that's the case already and we're simply just not a few hundred years out to have the analysis. Capitalism preceded its economic descriptors (Adam Smith) and its definition (Karl Marx) by centuries.

If that's the case, when would you define the beginning of this new economy? 1980's with the advent of credit cards? 1990's and 2000's with the explosion of the internet?

 

[Hygro]

Dunno, I don't think there's a single point. Mass higher education, internet forums, mass media, Web 2.0, smart phones, birth control, LSD, rock n roll... The telegraph and railroad? If I wanted to make up a turning point it was whenever the good looking popular high school girls started calling themselves geeks/nerds with critical mass achieved during the myspace age.

High school girls are very very socially careful. If they are casting their lot with a cool defined by information, that's probably where we're at.

Information has only gotten cheaper and more abundant, and yet more valuable.

 

[civman110]

Median incomes are declining, average incomes are going way up. The split would be even worse if we weren't as educated. He's still getting free money.

That would mean that CEO salaries at the top are increasing, while the salary for the average citizen is declining, as I said.

 

[Hygro]

Yes, there's an income split. The economy is complex, there will be multiple factors working in opposite direction. This means median incomes can be down, while time-wise matching a trend where education is up, with the education increasing median income.

It's certainly possible college is helping to perpetuate the income split on some sociological-political axis, but purely economically it's good for everyone.

You can think of it as the "desperately holding the line quotient" while everything else goes to [bad].

 

[civman110]

It's certainly possible college is helping to perpetuate the income split on some sociological-political axis, but purely economically it's good for everyone.

It's not necessarily "good for everyone." The US has more people with a university education than ever before and incomes are declining. Your original claim that more educated people from socialized university will raise incomes has already been disproven.

 

[Hygro]

The US has the more people with a University education that even before and incomes are declining.

Your original claim that more educated people from socialized university will raise incomes has already been disproven.

You aren't understanding what I wrote. Let me illustrate with an example.


Today you start your day with 15 dollars in your wallet.

You spend 15 dollars at the grocery store buying 2 40 ounces and some electric tape and have a solo Edwards 40-Hands party in an alleyway.

You then find a dollar on the ground.

You end the day down 14 dollars, and one of the events that affected your income was finding a dollar on the ground.

You conclude that you have proof that finding dollars on the ground loses you money.

This is your logic. If you concluded that one thing during that day's timespan added, and one subtracted, you'd have my post.

 

[civman110]

There is no direct correlation between more people with a university education = a more profitable economy that pays higher wages. An economy is much more complicated than that.

In fact, every person who graduates with the same degree as you makes your degree worth less in the labour market and lowers the average wage in your industry. It's simple supply and demand. All socialized university would do is make university just as valuable as high school is now - which doesn't do much to get you a job because almost everyone has a high school diploma.

 

[Hygro]

How Keynesian of you.

 

[jackelgull]

You say that like it's an insult.

 

[Hygro]

Half our posts stop making sense as civman and I keep rapid-fire editing our posts. I suggest checking post times against edit times

 

[jackelgull]

There is no direct correlation between more people with a university education = a more profitable economy that pays higher wages. An economy is much more complicated than that.

In fact, every person who graduates with the same degree as you makes your degree worth less in the labour market and lowers the average wage in your industry. It's simple supply and demand. All socialized university would do is make university just as valuable as high school is now - which doesn't do much to get you a job because almost everyone has a high school diploma.

University is more specialized then a high school diploma. While socialized university will mean more degrees, it does not mean every degree will be equally competitive for every job. Companies will still hire engineering majors for jobs that require engineering.

 

[civman110]

University is more specialized then a high school diploma. While socialized university will mean more degrees, it does not mean every degree will be equally competitive for every job. Companies will still hire engineering majors for jobs that require engineering.

Take this example:

You and 100 other people have an engineering diploma. 200 jobs are available. The demand for engineers exceeds the supply of engineers, so wages go up.

or

You and 500 other people have an engineering diploma. 200 jobs are available. The supply of engineers exceeds the demand for engineers, so wages drop.

 

[Hygro]

Go on

Pray tell how we are richer with 200 engineers engineering instead of 500 engineers engineering in our modeled economy.

edit: I see you have "200 jobs available" in there, so perhaps you can explain how that limitation exists when there are 500 engineers available.