University fees Page 11

Quote: Juan Kerr @ November 15 2010, 4:44 PM GMT

No - if you analise it - people need money - not a job - its just that a job is the accepted and conditioned way to acquire money. Generally employees do as little as they can get away with without being sacked and bosses pay as little as they can get away with without staff leaving. Thats how the rat race works

View original

No, if you analyse it money is just an exchange mechanism designed to reward people based on the amount they work. The only reason it appears differently is because what began as a simple exchange has spiralled into a confusing (to the layman) clusterf**k of economic games. What people need is food, water, shelter, entertainment and other necessities. No one needs money, they need sustenance.

Quote: Juan Kerr @ November 15 2010, 4:44 PM GMT

Too much emphasis is placed on a 'job' and not enough on becoming self reliant and enterprising. I think this is because kids are taught by teachers - and not entrepreneurs.

View original

This is possibly the most ridiculous thing anyone in this thread has put forward. Everyone should be an entrepreneur? What kind of outrageous hyper-capitalist society would that be? Where are your nurses and your bus drivers in that society? I just can't begin to get my head round how ridiculous it would be to take teaching away from teachers and give it over to business men.

Quote: Juan Kerr @ November 15 2010, 4:44 PM GMT

Re the need for academia...fine...but let people do it at theit own expense as adults - rather than studying ancient history etc - then trying to get a job in marketing.

View original

I can only conclude you live in a bubble and you don't understand how society works. I was actually agreeing with a lot of your points about uni before, but then you just deviated into this weird atomistic view of the world and it just sounds jaded and sad.

Quote: PhQnix @ November 16 2010, 8:59 PM GMT

No, if you analyse it money is just an exchange mechanism designed to reward people based on the amount they work. The only reason it appears differently is because what began as a simple exchange has spiralled into a confusing (to the layman) clusterf**k of economic games. What people need is food, water, shelter, entertainment and other necessities. No one needs money, they need sustenance.

This is possibly the most ridiculous thing anyone in this thread has put forward. Everyone should be an entrepreneur? What kind of ridiculous hyper-capitalist society would that be? Where are you nurses and your bus drivers in that society? I just can't begin to get my head round how ridiculous it would be to take teaching away from teachers and give it over to business men.

I can only conclude you live in a bubble and you don't understand how society works. I was actually agreeing with a lot of your points about uni before, but then you just deviated into this weird atomistic view of the world and it just sounds jaded.

View original

Very similar to what I was thinking. But couldn't be arsed to type.

Quote: PhQnix @ November 16 2010, 8:59 PM GMT

No, if you analyse it money is just an exchange mechanism designed to reward people based on the amount they work. The only reason it appears differently is because what began as a simple exchange has spiralled into a confusing (to the layman) clusterf**k of economic games. What people need is food, water, shelter, entertainment and other necessities. No one needs money, they need sustenance.

View original

Well except credit, loans etc are as old as civilisation and are vital source of social lubrication. Commerce along with law and alcohol is one of the first things any civilisation develops.

I'd be fascinated how many potatoes you'd need. Who you'd give the potatoe in ordrr to complete a degree course.

Pohl Pot, Islamist theocracies, North Korea most truly vile dictatorships try to strangle free trade.

Quote: sootyj @ November 16 2010, 9:26 PM GMT

Well except credit, loans etc are as old as civilisation and are vital source of social lubrication. Commerce along with law and alcohol is one of the first things any civilisation develops.

I'd be fascinated how many potatoes you'd need. Who you'd give the potatoe in ordrr to complete a degree course.

Pohl Pot, Islamist theocracies, North Korea most truly vile dictatorships try to strangle free trade.

View original

While there are other points you've made I'd take issue of, I don't think that was quite what Elliot was arguing. I'd suggest his was more a rebuttal of capitalism being the raison d'etre of society, than bemoaning the existence of money and advocating a return to barter systems.

Intrinsically, money is only worth what it can purchase. Like a WH Smith's voucher you can spend anywhere.

Quote: sootyj @ November 16 2010, 9:26 PM GMT

Well except credit, loans etc are as old as civilisation and are vital source of social lubrication. Commerce along with law and alcohol is one of the first things any civilisation develops.

View original

I didn't really mean credit and loans of such, those are things which I believe most people understand. You take a loan and you take it in lieu of work that you will complete at a later date. It's just reversing the mechanism.

Although it was initially a side point I was talking about the more complex games they play in the city with stocks and hedge funds and whathaveyou. I'm not really making a moral proclamation with this argument (though I would assume my views on all of these things are fairly obvious). At it's core I think I provided a fairly accurate description of what money is intended as.

Quote: PhQnix @ November 16 2010, 9:33 PM GMT

I didn't really mean credit and loans of such, those are things which I believe most people understand. You take a loan and you take it in lieu of work that you will complete at a later date. It's just reversing the mechanism.

Although it was initially a side point I was talking about the more complex games they play in the city with stocks and hedge funds and whathaveyou. I'm not really making a moral proclamation with this argument (though I would assume my views on all of these things are fairly obvious). At it's core I think I provided a fairly accurate description of what money is intended as.

View original

I know.

The question though is what's the better system?

Capitalism is man's natural state of being. We are omniverous pitiless primates.

The idea our society should slow down for those who can't keep up. Would make Darwin revolve in his grave.

Quote: sootyj @ November 16 2010, 9:42 PM GMT

The question though is what's the better system?

Capitalism is man's natural state of being. We are omniverous pitiless primates.

The idea our society should slow down for those who can't keep up. Would make Darwin revolve in his grave.

View original

I don't think Darwin was ever particularly morally tied to his scientific findings. Indeed, if he was a good scientist he would be completely detached.

I don't want to turn the thread into a debate over socialist tendencies or capitalist tendencies. But, I will respond to your question as I see it. I don't think humans can ever exist as true individuals, cut off from the rest of society. Indeed, you say 'primates' and most primates live in communal societies. You just can't survive without other people.

I recognise the element of competition that drives the actions of many humans, but I think cooperation doesn't necessarily disturb competition. I would prefer a more cooperative society and for people to take on a more universal outlook. I don't see why the systems in place should trample so many people who are just trying to live.

That was a meandering post. It's a difficult topic to express on an internet forum.

Quote: sootyj @ November 16 2010, 9:42 PM GMT

The question though is what's the better system?

Capitalism is man's natural state of being. We are omniverous pitiless primates.

The idea our society should slow down for those who can't keep up. Would make Darwin revolve in his grave.

View original

Well no, it wouldn't. Darwin was primarily concerned with suggesting how different species and sub-species came into being. If you're alluding to the social-Darwinism of the late 19th centuries which became the pseudo-scientific justification for the Holocaust, then you may well have a point. Darwin's theories had little - if anything - to do with human society, as far as my understanding goes.

Are you being deliberately facetious tonight sooty?

Quote: Rob H @ November 16 2010, 9:50 PM GMT

Are you being deliberately facetious tonight sooty?

View original

I gave him the benefit of the doubt on that one, I don't think he was suggesting social-darwinism. He's a little out there, but not evil!

Quote: PhQnix @ November 16 2010, 9:52 PM GMT

I gave him the benefit of the doubt on that one, I don't think he was suggesting social-darwinism. He's a little out there, but not evil!

View original

I wasn't implying that. Just that it seemed to me he was deliberately twisting the arguments.

Sorry if that's not the case Soots.

Not at all.

Nazism always gets unfair stick for making some perfectly reasonable ideas untenable.

China has increased all of it's markers on quality of living (health, life expectancy, education etc). Since becoming a market economy, the same can be said across Africa, where only the foolish send kids to UNESCO schools.

Only a small percentage of the population need to fall by the way side.

It's worth remembering 4% of the UK pay 24% of the taxes.

Tax percentages should start high and peter off as people become wealthier,

Quote: PhQnix @ November 16 2010, 9:50 PM GMT

I don't think Darwin was ever particularly morally tied to his scientific findings. Indeed, if he was a good scientist he would be completely detached.

View original

He was racked with guilt at how they clashed with his Christian faith. That he overcame this showed his great character.

Facetious is Sooty's middle name! When he's in the mood.

Quote: PhQnix @ November 16 2010, 9:50 PM GMT

I don't think Darwin was ever particularly morally tied to his scientific findings. Indeed, if he was a good scientist he would be completely detached.

I don't want to turn the thread into a debate over socialist tendencies or capitalist tendencies. But, I will respond to your question as I see it. I don't think humans can ever exist as true individuals, cut off from the rest of society. Indeed, you say 'primates' and most primates live in communal societies. You just can't survive without other people.

I recognise the element of competition that drives the actions of many humans, but I think cooperation doesn't necessarily disturb competition. I would prefer a more cooperative society and for people to take on a more universal outlook. I don't see why the systems in place should trample so many people who are just trying to live.

That was a meandering post. It's a difficult topic to express on an internet forum.

View original

Ah, I remember when I could write like this, before the years of work atrophied my brain. Working too hard chasing that public sector dollar for all it's worth.

Quote: zooo @ November 16 2010, 9:57 PM GMT

Facetious is Sooty's middle name! When he's in the mood.

View original

I'm guessing he's in the mood!