The Official "Argue with waf" Thread (2 Viewers)

[withoutaface]

NCAP is boring me, because all we seem to get are the same old threads about Islam and a couple of other minor issues which don't make for good debate, and I feel a need to sharpen my teeth against the left ahead of Union elections, so I've created this thread.

The purpose is as stated, you take my stance on any particular issue (or my ideology as a whole), and attack it, be it by forming a cohesive argument against it, asking seemingly unanswerable questions of it, or a combination of the two.

I'll now post some of my views, so hopefully this will give some ideas of what to debate:
1. Higher education: I support a transition to a full fee system, but while the system remains as it is (i.e. HECS) I also support voluntary student unionism.
2. Social: I support the deinstitutionalisation of marriage, complete legalisation of drugs, pro choice for abortion, etc.
3. Foreign policy and immigration: I believe that Iraq should never have been invaded, but as we've already fucked it up we need to correct our error. I also believe that mandatory detention should not be enforced for any period longer than a week to a month, and that thereafter immigrants should have to report weekly to government centres. Failure to do so on more than one occassion without a reasonable excuse will result in deportation.
4. Labour market: I am absolutely opposed to the existence of a minimum wage, and believe that unions should not be given special legal status whereby they can force employers to deal through them, give worker's jobs special protection during strikes, prevent the hiring of scabs etc.
5. Trade: I believe that protectionism is never justified, except perhaps in cases of open war with a nation where free trade would benefit their war effort more than ours.

And there's a whole lot of others you might want to attack. The only rule is that I will refuse to respond to any questions revolving around religion, because we already have enough of that crapping up the rest of the forum.

If the moderators deem this thread to be too self indulgent, then they're welcome to delete it, but I think it could potentially revive some semblence of decent political debate, presuming there's some non-libertarians that still post.

 

[erawamai]

erawamai is neck deep in uni work. I assume Moonlight is as well.

I guess you can always debate with mathmite, where ever he is.

 

[withoutaface]

erawamai is neck deep in uni work. I assume Moonlight is as well.

I guess you can always debate with mathmite, where ever he is.

That's what I was afraid of

All I see nowadays are the libertarians/conservatives vs the bos muslims :/

 

[wheredanton]

What is the point of this? So poor people can't go to uni?

I think Waf is going to beat you over the head with his free market stick.

 

[withoutaface]

What is the point of this? So poor people can't go to uni?

I endorse a shareholder system to replace the current one, whereby a certain individual may choose to buy 'shares' in the education of, say, a hundred science students, and later, once they enter the workplace, they receive a certain percentage of that cohort's income for a given number of years. The benefits of this over HECS are as follows:
1. Students will be able to opt for a variety of packages, from a basic tuition fees only, to one which covers both that and certain living expenses, for a higher percentage of their future earnings. The way I see it, this will increase accessibility and help to overcome problems where students can't afford to move to the big cities to go to university.
2. It will make students more aware that at any moment people might refuse to buy shares for their next semester's worth of tuition, and so will give a greater incentive to work hard.
3. Gives universities greater incentives to find alternative sources of funding, such as what has occurred in the United States with Vanderbilt University, which only gets 9% of its income from tuition fees.
4. Creates closer to the right number of skilled graduates for any particular market condition. This is because when there are not enough students being sponsored compared to what the market requires, the projected income of these students will be a lot higher, and this will encourage sponsorship to rush into this sector, and once the right number is reached, prices will once again communicate this to investors, and they will invest in other degrees instead.
5. Lower taxes because taxpayers are no longer subsidising higher education.

 

[Captain Gh3y]

What companies do you suppose will sponsor visual/performing arts degrees (for example)?

 

[withoutaface]

What companies do you suppose will sponsor visual/performing arts degrees (for example)?

Performing arts is rather fickle in that while the odd person may win out bigtime and score a lead role in a Hollywood blockbuster, a lot of others will earn fairly modest wages, but I think this will balance out when averaged so that a sufficient number of people are trained in this discipline, because, keep in mind, in most cases they'll be financing a cohort of individuals, so the risk is diminished.

If, however, the market has no desire for more artists or performers, then they won't be funded, and these people will be funnelled into degrees where they can be of more use to society.

 

[Generator]

If the moderators deem this thread to be too self indulgent, then they're welcome to delete it, but I think it could potentially revive some semblence of decent political debate, presuming there's some non-libertarians that still post.

I have no problem with the thread, and as you say it may prove to be interesting. However, I will take action should it degenerate into an abusive slanging match, but that will only be to bring it back into some sort of order.

Edit: Though this should go without saying, I hope that everyone remembers that they are here to consider and possibly deconstruct the arguments, not attack the member.

 

[withoutaface]

yeh im with miss gtr on this one.

it's perhaps the most ridiculous statement i've heard, and it hasnt even been backed up (yet) with any logic, just a statement.

If you'd read my response you'd see that it has. The intent of my original post was merely to state my ideas, because justifying each and every one of them would take far too long.

there is no reason why people who are not in the financial position to pay for their university fees upfront/have their family pay should not be allowed the opportunity to enhance themselves personally, professionally and economically by undertaking tertiary training.

I agree. If they have the ability, they'll be sponsored.

justin - do you pay for your own university fees? if so, do you pay for them upfront with money that you have earnt over your 18/19 years of life, or are you on a hecs-help deferred loan (which im presuming you're not)........or have your family paid for your university fees?

I'm on HECS because there is no other viable option under the current system.

making university fee paying is effectively cutting off the option to many australians, it will increase the gap between the rich and the poor and i cannot see any economic benefit or personal benefit to be gained from this.

You don't see an economic benefit to be gained from:
a) increasing accessibility;
b) giving the market control over skills according to supply and demand;
c) lower taxes;
d) more productive students?

i'm quite interested to hear your side of the story

As I said, it's already been posted.

 

[withoutaface]

so personal ambitions and dreams hold no value in your utopia, its all about the dollar

If I have a personal dream to hold a degree in the linguistics of caterpillars, but this does not benefit anyone else but me, why should society fund my dream?

so what you're effectively saying is that prospective students should prostitute themselves and become permanently owned by large corporations

i fail to see how that is of benefit to anyone apart from corporations themselves

They are not "owned" by the corporations, as they are still free to work where they want, for whatever pay they want. Using that logic I could say that we're the property of the government because we pay taxes or HECS, which is stupid.

 

[loquasagacious]

I think the shareholder system is perhaps flawed for a couple of reasons:

Given the idea of companies comitting semester by semester however degrees taking 3+ years students are vulnerable to loosing support say 2/3 of the way through a degree and then needing to retrain and basically start at the beginning again.

Also related time lag issues such as companies investing in shares in accordance with current markte conditions as opposed to market conditions in future years. At the very least this plan will boost actuarial positions (starts buying shares in actuaries).

And if we took this down to individual courses then diversity in courses undertaken would drop which hurts flexibility in the workforce.

Also I daresay it would be difficult to find support for cutting edge courses.

And perhaps as mentioned the performance, creative and even just plain BAs would be neglected - eg would the govt be buying shares to ensure a supply of public servants, pollies and teachers?

My preference is towards a similar system of full (or much nearer full) fees however with the option of deferring payment much like HECS. And yes I would also hold out the option of putting 'money to live' on this deferred bill.

 

[withoutaface]

But with that... won't students feel.. I dunno, A bit overwhelmed with their future..Its still kinda like HECS, as in they will be working for a while to reach a status where they in complete control of their income-and what they earn is theirs and thus, a sense of fully achieving in life is further away.

They feel like that under HECS anyway.

Spose, so your saying.. this would eliminate masses of students graduating without much hope of employment? And 'Investors' could direct their sponsorships into other degrees so this doesnt happen?

Exactly.

 

[ur_inner_child]

Performing arts is rather fickle in that while the odd person may win out bigtime and score a lead role in a Hollywood blockbuster, a lot of others will earn fairly modest wages, but I think this will balance out when averaged so that a sufficient number of people are trained in this discipline, because, keep in mind, in most cases they'll be financing a cohort of individuals, so the risk is diminished.

If, however, the market has no desire for more artists or performers, then they won't be funded, and these people will be funnelled into degrees where they can be of more use to society.

How much of this will dumb down the quality of our society, when it comes to the cultural and intellectual side of things (art, music, philosophy), when the only things we learn are dependent on whether the market requires it or not?

I admit my university (Sydney Conservatorium of Music) produces a lot of musicians - but ultimately a surplus of people can mean more job opportunities. - the various orchestras we have going because of the amount of quality performers, and thus more opportunities for managers, marketing roles etc.

In otherwords, its not that companies invest in them, its that the performing artists pop up first, and eager marketers etc run up to work with them. Even professors in my university - It's not all playing instruments you know. Quite a great deal of mathematics and science... not that that has to do with anything

Forgive my ignorance in any little detail, but I feel it would be detrimental to people like me....

 

[loquasagacious]

it shouldn't. that's why your system's flawed

Thats why his system isn't flawed..... if society/industry demands a degree in caterpillar linguistics then it would be supplied.

 

[loquasagacious]

To maintain a degree of intellectual diversity i would perhaps favour a share system which allocated a precise three courses per semester and left one free to do with as one pleased.

This gives students an oppurtunity to react to the market themselves and try and be more employable.

 

[withoutaface]

Given the idea of companies comitting semester by semester however degrees taking 3+ years students are vulnerable to loosing support say 2/3 of the way through a degree and then needing to retrain and basically start at the beginning again.

The only conceivable reason why they would lose such support would be:
a) if they don't put the effort into their studies and consistently fail.
b) if it would be next to impossible to get a job with that degree upon graduation, which means that they're better off paying 2/3 of the money for no job than 100% of the money for no job.
And I think you're forgetting that they could usually get at least some credit from their current degree to another degree.

Also related time lag issues such as companies investing in shares in accordance with current markte conditions as opposed to market conditions in future years. At the very least this plan will boost actuarial positions (starts buying shares in actuaries).

It would pay for companies to look into the future prospects of the degrees because they know if they invest according to current conditions they could get majorly screwed.

And if we took this down to individual courses then diversity in courses undertaken would drop which hurts flexibility in the workforce.

If it pays to make 1/2 the BSc's major in chem, 1/4 in maths and another 1/4 in physics then that's what the market will choose. In general the degree funding system will be based on what will enhance productivity the most.

Also I daresay it would be difficult to find support for cutting edge courses.

It's like looking at high-risk shares vs blue chips. There's always someone willing to invest in the former.

And perhaps as mentioned the performance, creative and even just plain BAs would be neglected - eg would the govt be buying shares to ensure a supply of public servants, pollies and teachers?

Fitting this in is, admittedly, difficult, because it involves trying to reconcile a laissez faire free market idea within the current mixed market system. If all schooling were private, then teachers would be paid at the market value, and if there was a shortage then the projected pay for teachers would increase, and so would the number being trained. Public servants I'm not so sure.

My preference is towards a similar system of full (or much nearer full) fees however with the option of deferring payment much like HECS. And yes I would also hold out the option of putting 'money to live' on this deferred bill.

The only issue with it is that even if HECS were increased to 100%, the government still loses money from people who don't earn enough to pay it back, skip the country etc, and also it costs money to provide interest free loans.

 

[wheredanton]

Waf certainly enjoys swinging his big thick free market stick.

 

[withoutaface]

How much of this will dumb down the quality of our society, when it comes to the cultural and intellectual side of things (art, music, philosophy), when the only things we learn are dependent on whether the market requires it or not?

I admit my university (Sydney Conservatorium of Music) produces a lot of musicians - but ultimately a surplus of people can mean more job opportunities. - the various orchestras we have going because of the amount of quality performers, and thus more opportunities for managers, marketing roles etc.

In otherwords, its not that companies invest in them, its that the performing artists pop up first, and eager marketers etc run up to work with them.

Forgive my ignorance in any little detail, but I feel it would be detrimental to people like me....

Musicians would qualify as a high risk investment, because they might make millions, but they might make a pittance. It would end up that there would be just enough going through a musicians degree to ensure that, say, 90% of future millionaire musicians got through, and that there'd be a minimum of those people who'd end up being street buskers.
By definition of a surplus the extra people on top of what is needed would be of more use in another industry, and so this system would encourage that movement.

 

[Xayma]

2. Social: I support the deinstitutionalisation of marriage, complete legalisation of drugs, pro choice for abortion, etc.

On the issue of drugs. Are you also for complete privatisation of health services and removal of the PBS. This is related as various drugs increase the incidence of mental illness for example marijuana. If they choose to take a drug then they should be able to fund all consequences of said drug.

What about issues resolving around physical addiction where consequences may be fatal, should taxpayer funds continue to be used such as alcohol addiction? Would education about drugs be provided, who will fund this? What stance should such education take, pro-drug or anti-drug? Will anti-drug commercials etc still be shown?

 

[withoutaface]

it shouldn't. that's why your system's flawed

Wrong. If there's no market for a caterpillar whisperer, then I won't get sponsored, and, as you said, that's what should be happening.

no...using that logic it would mean that the government and governmnet spending, etc is property of ours, which is quite accurate.

How so? How is a private company sponsoring our education inherently different in terms of whether the company owns us or not when compared to the government sponsoring our education?