The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Arizona: College is only for the rich and athletes

1910111214

Posts

  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    bowen wrote: »
    Thing is rich people won't burn down anything. Without the structure, they're not rich.

    They do when it benefits them.

  • PhillisherePhillishere Registered User regular
    The history of European and Asian modern nations has been a steady climb from tribalism to modernity - first in the form of kings and then nation states. These are traditions that the world's most prosperous regions abandoned centuries ago. Even the Middle East has advanced pretty far along these grounds. It's only in the more hellish parts of the world - Africa and Central Asia, particularly - that this primitive form of governance still holds ground.

  • ronyaronya Arrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    There was a nation-state in Afghanistan, centered around Kabul, not terribly long ago. It lost its ability to restrain its peripheral territories since, though.

  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Calixtus wrote: »
    I do recognize that this kind of private dynastic wealth is extremely rare, and I do generally want companies which are inefficient to go under, but it just seems like letting the kid with his name on the building into your "pure merit" school so that the family business doesn't go under (assuming it otherwise runs well and at a profit) is so low cost to society that it isn't neccessarily a bad thing. This is not the most principled argument, but sometimes you have to just accept that a course of action may be beneficial to society, even though you can't base it on a broadly derived normative principle.
    A) There's an odd assumption in there that as long as the kid is rich enough, his merit is irrelevant to whether he will actually manage to graduate - whether he will actually manage to benefit from the education offered. This is, I'd say, not a valid assumption.

    B) If he has capital but lacks competence he should do things the capitalist way and pay an agent with competence to act in his stead. The idea that he would need the education himself meshes poorly with the capitalist framework.

    It's, like, socialism, except only for rich people for the purpose of protecting corporate entities rather than individuals.
    ronya wrote: »
    Lawndart wrote: »
    You can effectively cut this "slack" by allowing those who have the means or the capacity to succeed and not just let every Tom, Dick and Harry go.

    Or you could make college acceptance strictly merit-based, since there's no real social benefit to providing a college education to everyone with parents wealthy enough to afford tuition.

    I am not sure this is true. For example, if a family has a vast fortune and owns companies, estates with lots of staff, etc. then it is probably a good thing to make sure that the heir to the fortune is educated enough to run the whole empire, otherwise the while thing may fall apart and lots of people may lose their jobs.

    These cases are, by definition, pretty rare.

    Happily developed economies tend to have fewer situations where inheritance has a possibly massive detrimental impact on the lives of many, in part because publicly-run corporations with dispersed shareholdership have better management on average than family-run ones.

    And in addition to the points I made above, I have a feeling that the heirs to the fortune 500 aren't going to be going to state schools anytime soon.

    Well, that is the winning argument right there!

    I do recognize that this kind of private dynastic wealth is extremely rare, and I do generally want companies which are inefficient to go under, but it just seems like letting the kid with his name on the building into your "pure merit" school so that the family business doesn't go under (assuming it otherwise runs well and at a profit) is so low cost to society that it isn't neccessarily a bad thing. This is not the most principled argument, but sometimes you have to just accept that a course of action may be beneficial to society, even though you can't base it on a broadly derived normative principle.

    Why doesn't the hypothetical kid learn how the company works by spending several years working at different levels in the company? Why do they have to go to get a college education, when the business itself and the years of experience of it's employees are entirely accessible to them? Why wouldn't that be better for the business, the hypothetical kid and society as a whole?

    I agree that these are all good reasons that the heir should just hire someone to do the job, but that solution may not always be available in practice, since families are not always comfortable putting someone else in charge of the family business. This is clearly irrational behaviour, but since we have to accept this reality in at least some cases, in those cases I think we are better off educating the heir as well as we can, both through formal education and through getting on the job experience.

    But again, wouldn't this hypothetical Incompetent Hamlet be going to a private school rather than a state school? Private colleges can do whatever (though they shouldn't), this discussion is mostly concerned with the state system.

    Yes, but the meritocracy arguments seemed to be focusing on education as a whole, not just the public sector. I agree 100% that the people in this position (and I literally have one in my family. . .) will go to private schools.

    Ah, yes. There's very little we can do about the private sector, though.

    All my comments have been about handling the state system.

    I would like to see a meritocracy across the board, but I'm also not against letting Rich Kids pay their way in, so long as it's not to the detriment of students who deserve a place more.

    It's not our job to make sure Incompetent Hamlet doesn't fuck up his company. If it's big enough to hurt the economy like that, it's public, and the shareholders will cull the wheat from the chaff.

    Here is the story from in my family, fuzzied up a little to keep it from being identifiable.

    I had an uncle who was a self made man. Came up from nothing, and without even having a college education he built a big, important company worth a lot of money, and which employees a lot of people in America and abroad. The Company is private, and my uncle and his wife owned it all. So eventually my uncle wanted to retire, and tried putting his son (who had been groomed for the job his whole life) in charge of a division. It was a disaster, and the whole division nearly went out of business. So my uncle stayed on, and continued to work until the day he was literally too ill to work anymore. Around the time that my uncle got too sick to run the company, his son (who was now in charge) made a deal to sell the company to a competitor (who proceeded to fire a number of employees), leading to a terrible feud.

    This is not an example where the heir could not get into college (he went to a private school) but it does show that, for good or for ill, there are ridiculous situations like this where the fate of a company (and its employees) is literally going to be in the hands of a specific person whether or not they are qualified, and I think this is reason enough to make exceptions to a strict, across the board meritocracy policy (which I am generally in favor of).

    Why didn't he groom someone else the instant the heir started fucking up? Companies do have access to various personnel who could have taken over. Family isn't the only option in this situation. Sucks it wouldn't stay in the family's hands but that's the heir's fault for being incompetent not the company's.

    I asked myself the same thing. And now it isn't even owned by the family, let alone run by it. And of course, he cut his siblings who did not own shares out of the deal entirely. It was a bad situation.

    7zh9uu9etcor.jpg
    Chanus wrote:
    It's been a butt come true! I get to work with the absolute best boobs in the business. What more could a money ask for? Kids, aim for the freeloaders !

    @chanus
  • SammyFSammyF Registered User regular
    edited February 2012
    SammyF wrote: »
    Here is an idea that provides real "skin in the game." Why not require anyone who accepts state aid to provide some sort of civil service for a couple of years after graduation. Then the state could see a direct return on its investment by guaranteeing that it will have educated people available for beaurocratic positions. You could even pay less than you would pay to "real" government workers to reflect the money the government already laid out towards school. Best of all, when they entered the private jobs market, they would have their degree plus two years of experience on their resume.

    That idea is so much more progressive than your earlier position that I'm pretty sure I saw it proposed on an episode of West Wing. I don't mean that to sound critical; I'm just trying to acknowledge that you're obviously trying to approach this with an open mind.

    I would generally be down with that on a philosophical level. I think there would probably be some implementation hurdles which may or may not be surmountable; I don't know if we have enough civil service jobs to go around for everyone who accepts financial aid. I don't know what impact that would have on people who wanted to try and get a civil service job who were ineligible for financial aid initially. The biggest hurdle I see, though, is that states can barely afford to offer the financial aid in the first place; I'm not sure where they'll find the money to pay all of those graduates even the most basic cost-of-living wage while they're putting in their service.
    If the various governments decided to spend money on it, there would be tons of opening in mental health and other social services that require a whole lot of job specific education before-hand. Of course, spending on social programs...
    Two of my friends from college were a business and a music major, and both have spent the last couple years working for the county with kids who have behavioral problems.

    That's what my wife does, though she works for a private non-profit and not the municipal government.

    She also studied psychology and child development for six years so that she could become a professional at it. I think it's awesome that both of your friends wanted to take jobs where they could work with troubled or at-risk children, but after listening to her "how was work today, honey?" stories for a few years, I always feel little bit sketchy about special needs kids being matched up with service providers with no professional or academic background in child development or special education. It's astounding, for instance, what a trained clinician can accomplish with a non-verbal, non-toilet trained 8-year old autistic child that his untrained parents hadn't been able to teach him after working with him every day for the preceding eight years of his life.

    I'd be especially leery about expanding that to the point where tens of thousands of kids were being matched with clinicians or service providers who not only hadn't been trained in that field, but who were also slotted into those jobs compulsorily because they hadn't been able to pay for college out of pocket.
    Calixtus wrote: »
    I do recognize that this kind of private dynastic wealth is extremely rare, and I do generally want companies which are inefficient to go under, but it just seems like letting the kid with his name on the building into your "pure merit" school so that the family business doesn't go under (assuming it otherwise runs well and at a profit) is so low cost to society that it isn't neccessarily a bad thing. This is not the most principled argument, but sometimes you have to just accept that a course of action may be beneficial to society, even though you can't base it on a broadly derived normative principle.
    A) There's an odd assumption in there that as long as the kid is rich enough, his merit is irrelevant to whether he will actually manage to graduate - whether he will actually manage to benefit from the education offered. This is, I'd say, not a valid assumption.

    B) If he has capital but lacks competence he should do things the capitalist way and pay an agent with competence to act in his stead. The idea that he would need the education himself meshes poorly with the capitalist framework.

    It's, like, socialism, except only for rich people for the purpose of protecting corporate entities rather than individuals.
    ronya wrote: »
    Lawndart wrote: »
    You can effectively cut this "slack" by allowing those who have the means or the capacity to succeed and not just let every Tom, Dick and Harry go.

    Or you could make college acceptance strictly merit-based, since there's no real social benefit to providing a college education to everyone with parents wealthy enough to afford tuition.

    I am not sure this is true. For example, if a family has a vast fortune and owns companies, estates with lots of staff, etc. then it is probably a good thing to make sure that the heir to the fortune is educated enough to run the whole empire, otherwise the while thing may fall apart and lots of people may lose their jobs.

    These cases are, by definition, pretty rare.

    Happily developed economies tend to have fewer situations where inheritance has a possibly massive detrimental impact on the lives of many, in part because publicly-run corporations with dispersed shareholdership have better management on average than family-run ones.

    And in addition to the points I made above, I have a feeling that the heirs to the fortune 500 aren't going to be going to state schools anytime soon.

    Well, that is the winning argument right there!

    I do recognize that this kind of private dynastic wealth is extremely rare, and I do generally want companies which are inefficient to go under, but it just seems like letting the kid with his name on the building into your "pure merit" school so that the family business doesn't go under (assuming it otherwise runs well and at a profit) is so low cost to society that it isn't neccessarily a bad thing. This is not the most principled argument, but sometimes you have to just accept that a course of action may be beneficial to society, even though you can't base it on a broadly derived normative principle.

    Why doesn't the hypothetical kid learn how the company works by spending several years working at different levels in the company? Why do they have to go to get a college education, when the business itself and the years of experience of it's employees are entirely accessible to them? Why wouldn't that be better for the business, the hypothetical kid and society as a whole?

    I agree that these are all good reasons that the heir should just hire someone to do the job, but that solution may not always be available in practice, since families are not always comfortable putting someone else in charge of the family business. This is clearly irrational behaviour, but since we have to accept this reality in at least some cases, in those cases I think we are better off educating the heir as well as we can, both through formal education and through getting on the job experience.

    But again, wouldn't this hypothetical Incompetent Hamlet be going to a private school rather than a state school? Private colleges can do whatever (though they shouldn't), this discussion is mostly concerned with the state system.

    Yes, but the meritocracy arguments seemed to be focusing on education as a whole, not just the public sector. I agree 100% that the people in this position (and I literally have one in my family. . .) will go to private schools.

    Ah, yes. There's very little we can do about the private sector, though.

    All my comments have been about handling the state system.

    I would like to see a meritocracy across the board, but I'm also not against letting Rich Kids pay their way in, so long as it's not to the detriment of students who deserve a place more.

    It's not our job to make sure Incompetent Hamlet doesn't fuck up his company. If it's big enough to hurt the economy like that, it's public, and the shareholders will cull the wheat from the chaff.

    Here is the story from in my family, fuzzied up a little to keep it from being identifiable.

    I had an uncle who was a self made man. Came up from nothing, and without even having a college education he built a big, important company worth a lot of money, and which employees a lot of people in America and abroad. The Company is private, and my uncle and his wife owned it all. So eventually my uncle wanted to retire, and tried putting his son (who had been groomed for the job his whole life) in charge of a division. It was a disaster, and the whole division nearly went out of business. So my uncle stayed on, and continued to work until the day he was literally too ill to work anymore. Around the time that my uncle got too sick to run the company, his son (who was now in charge) made a deal to sell the company to a competitor (who proceeded to fire a number of employees), leading to a terrible feud.

    This is not an example where the heir could not get into college (he went to a private school) but it does show that, for good or for ill, there are ridiculous situations like this where the fate of a company (and its employees) is literally going to be in the hands of a specific person whether or not they are qualified, and I think this is reason enough to make exceptions to a strict, across the board meritocracy policy (which I am generally in favor of).

    Why didn't he groom someone else the instant the heir started fucking up? Companies do have access to various personnel who could have taken over. Family isn't the only option in this situation. Sucks it wouldn't stay in the family's hands but that's the heir's fault for being incompetent not the company's.

    I asked myself the same thing. And now it isn't even owned by the family, let alone run by it. And of course, he cut his siblings who did not own shares out of the deal entirely. It was a bad situation.

    The same thing happened in my family. I disagree that it's the heir's fault, though; it was your uncle's decision to leave him the business that ultimately lead to its failure. You leave an incompetent child a trust fund, you don't put them in charge of anything that influences someone else's life.

    In our case, hundreds of people lost their livelihoods because my grandpa was a petulant asshole who used the family business to force his sons compete for his approval. It was like Arrested Development, only not funny. By the time grandpa died, neither son was willing to work with the other to run the business, neither trusted the other to run it independently while taking the role of silent partner, neither had the liquid capital to buy the other out, and so the only option left was to sell.

    We got tens of millions of dollars out of it. Everyone else got laid off. I don't feel particularly great about that.

    SammyF on
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Calixtus wrote: »
    I do recognize that this kind of private dynastic wealth is extremely rare, and I do generally want companies which are inefficient to go under, but it just seems like letting the kid with his name on the building into your "pure merit" school so that the family business doesn't go under (assuming it otherwise runs well and at a profit) is so low cost to society that it isn't neccessarily a bad thing. This is not the most principled argument, but sometimes you have to just accept that a course of action may be beneficial to society, even though you can't base it on a broadly derived normative principle.
    A) There's an odd assumption in there that as long as the kid is rich enough, his merit is irrelevant to whether he will actually manage to graduate - whether he will actually manage to benefit from the education offered. This is, I'd say, not a valid assumption.

    B) If he has capital but lacks competence he should do things the capitalist way and pay an agent with competence to act in his stead. The idea that he would need the education himself meshes poorly with the capitalist framework.

    It's, like, socialism, except only for rich people for the purpose of protecting corporate entities rather than individuals.
    ronya wrote: »
    Lawndart wrote: »
    You can effectively cut this "slack" by allowing those who have the means or the capacity to succeed and not just let every Tom, Dick and Harry go.

    Or you could make college acceptance strictly merit-based, since there's no real social benefit to providing a college education to everyone with parents wealthy enough to afford tuition.

    I am not sure this is true. For example, if a family has a vast fortune and owns companies, estates with lots of staff, etc. then it is probably a good thing to make sure that the heir to the fortune is educated enough to run the whole empire, otherwise the while thing may fall apart and lots of people may lose their jobs.

    These cases are, by definition, pretty rare.

    Happily developed economies tend to have fewer situations where inheritance has a possibly massive detrimental impact on the lives of many, in part because publicly-run corporations with dispersed shareholdership have better management on average than family-run ones.

    And in addition to the points I made above, I have a feeling that the heirs to the fortune 500 aren't going to be going to state schools anytime soon.

    Well, that is the winning argument right there!

    I do recognize that this kind of private dynastic wealth is extremely rare, and I do generally want companies which are inefficient to go under, but it just seems like letting the kid with his name on the building into your "pure merit" school so that the family business doesn't go under (assuming it otherwise runs well and at a profit) is so low cost to society that it isn't neccessarily a bad thing. This is not the most principled argument, but sometimes you have to just accept that a course of action may be beneficial to society, even though you can't base it on a broadly derived normative principle.

    Why doesn't the hypothetical kid learn how the company works by spending several years working at different levels in the company? Why do they have to go to get a college education, when the business itself and the years of experience of it's employees are entirely accessible to them? Why wouldn't that be better for the business, the hypothetical kid and society as a whole?

    I agree that these are all good reasons that the heir should just hire someone to do the job, but that solution may not always be available in practice, since families are not always comfortable putting someone else in charge of the family business. This is clearly irrational behaviour, but since we have to accept this reality in at least some cases, in those cases I think we are better off educating the heir as well as we can, both through formal education and through getting on the job experience.

    But again, wouldn't this hypothetical Incompetent Hamlet be going to a private school rather than a state school? Private colleges can do whatever (though they shouldn't), this discussion is mostly concerned with the state system.

    Yes, but the meritocracy arguments seemed to be focusing on education as a whole, not just the public sector. I agree 100% that the people in this position (and I literally have one in my family. . .) will go to private schools.

    Ah, yes. There's very little we can do about the private sector, though.

    All my comments have been about handling the state system.

    I would like to see a meritocracy across the board, but I'm also not against letting Rich Kids pay their way in, so long as it's not to the detriment of students who deserve a place more.

    It's not our job to make sure Incompetent Hamlet doesn't fuck up his company. If it's big enough to hurt the economy like that, it's public, and the shareholders will cull the wheat from the chaff.

    Here is the story from in my family, fuzzied up a little to keep it from being identifiable.

    I had an uncle who was a self made man. Came up from nothing, and without even having a college education he built a big, important company worth a lot of money, and which employees a lot of people in America and abroad. The Company is private, and my uncle and his wife owned it all. So eventually my uncle wanted to retire, and tried putting his son (who had been groomed for the job his whole life) in charge of a division. It was a disaster, and the whole division nearly went out of business. So my uncle stayed on, and continued to work until the day he was literally too ill to work anymore. Around the time that my uncle got too sick to run the company, his son (who was now in charge) made a deal to sell the company to a competitor (who proceeded to fire a number of employees), leading to a terrible feud.

    This is not an example where the heir could not get into college (he went to a private school) but it does show that, for good or for ill, there are ridiculous situations like this where the fate of a company (and its employees) is literally going to be in the hands of a specific person whether or not they are qualified, and I think this is reason enough to make exceptions to a strict, across the board meritocracy policy (which I am generally in favor of).

    Why didn't he groom someone else the instant the heir started fucking up? Companies do have access to various personnel who could have taken over. Family isn't the only option in this situation. Sucks it wouldn't stay in the family's hands but that's the heir's fault for being incompetent not the company's.

    I asked myself the same thing. And now it isn't even owned by the family, let alone run by it. And of course, he cut his siblings who did not own shares out of the deal entirely. It was a bad situation.

    So then why are you arguing for the perpetuation of this system? All the evidence you bring out to defend letting rich kids jump the line proves it doesn't work so I'm just a bit confused here.

    Why is it the government's job to subsidize the rich? Why is socialism bad when it helps the poor, but to be applauded when it benefits the rich?

    Lh96QHG.png
  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Calixtus wrote: »
    I do recognize that this kind of private dynastic wealth is extremely rare, and I do generally want companies which are inefficient to go under, but it just seems like letting the kid with his name on the building into your "pure merit" school so that the family business doesn't go under (assuming it otherwise runs well and at a profit) is so low cost to society that it isn't neccessarily a bad thing. This is not the most principled argument, but sometimes you have to just accept that a course of action may be beneficial to society, even though you can't base it on a broadly derived normative principle.
    A) There's an odd assumption in there that as long as the kid is rich enough, his merit is irrelevant to whether he will actually manage to graduate - whether he will actually manage to benefit from the education offered. This is, I'd say, not a valid assumption.

    B) If he has capital but lacks competence he should do things the capitalist way and pay an agent with competence to act in his stead. The idea that he would need the education himself meshes poorly with the capitalist framework.

    It's, like, socialism, except only for rich people for the purpose of protecting corporate entities rather than individuals.
    ronya wrote: »
    Lawndart wrote: »
    You can effectively cut this "slack" by allowing those who have the means or the capacity to succeed and not just let every Tom, Dick and Harry go.

    Or you could make college acceptance strictly merit-based, since there's no real social benefit to providing a college education to everyone with parents wealthy enough to afford tuition.

    I am not sure this is true. For example, if a family has a vast fortune and owns companies, estates with lots of staff, etc. then it is probably a good thing to make sure that the heir to the fortune is educated enough to run the whole empire, otherwise the while thing may fall apart and lots of people may lose their jobs.

    These cases are, by definition, pretty rare.

    Happily developed economies tend to have fewer situations where inheritance has a possibly massive detrimental impact on the lives of many, in part because publicly-run corporations with dispersed shareholdership have better management on average than family-run ones.

    And in addition to the points I made above, I have a feeling that the heirs to the fortune 500 aren't going to be going to state schools anytime soon.

    Well, that is the winning argument right there!

    I do recognize that this kind of private dynastic wealth is extremely rare, and I do generally want companies which are inefficient to go under, but it just seems like letting the kid with his name on the building into your "pure merit" school so that the family business doesn't go under (assuming it otherwise runs well and at a profit) is so low cost to society that it isn't neccessarily a bad thing. This is not the most principled argument, but sometimes you have to just accept that a course of action may be beneficial to society, even though you can't base it on a broadly derived normative principle.

    Why doesn't the hypothetical kid learn how the company works by spending several years working at different levels in the company? Why do they have to go to get a college education, when the business itself and the years of experience of it's employees are entirely accessible to them? Why wouldn't that be better for the business, the hypothetical kid and society as a whole?

    I agree that these are all good reasons that the heir should just hire someone to do the job, but that solution may not always be available in practice, since families are not always comfortable putting someone else in charge of the family business. This is clearly irrational behaviour, but since we have to accept this reality in at least some cases, in those cases I think we are better off educating the heir as well as we can, both through formal education and through getting on the job experience.

    But again, wouldn't this hypothetical Incompetent Hamlet be going to a private school rather than a state school? Private colleges can do whatever (though they shouldn't), this discussion is mostly concerned with the state system.

    Yes, but the meritocracy arguments seemed to be focusing on education as a whole, not just the public sector. I agree 100% that the people in this position (and I literally have one in my family. . .) will go to private schools.

    Ah, yes. There's very little we can do about the private sector, though.

    All my comments have been about handling the state system.

    I would like to see a meritocracy across the board, but I'm also not against letting Rich Kids pay their way in, so long as it's not to the detriment of students who deserve a place more.

    It's not our job to make sure Incompetent Hamlet doesn't fuck up his company. If it's big enough to hurt the economy like that, it's public, and the shareholders will cull the wheat from the chaff.

    Here is the story from in my family, fuzzied up a little to keep it from being identifiable.

    I had an uncle who was a self made man. Came up from nothing, and without even having a college education he built a big, important company worth a lot of money, and which employees a lot of people in America and abroad. The Company is private, and my uncle and his wife owned it all. So eventually my uncle wanted to retire, and tried putting his son (who had been groomed for the job his whole life) in charge of a division. It was a disaster, and the whole division nearly went out of business. So my uncle stayed on, and continued to work until the day he was literally too ill to work anymore. Around the time that my uncle got too sick to run the company, his son (who was now in charge) made a deal to sell the company to a competitor (who proceeded to fire a number of employees), leading to a terrible feud.

    This is not an example where the heir could not get into college (he went to a private school) but it does show that, for good or for ill, there are ridiculous situations like this where the fate of a company (and its employees) is literally going to be in the hands of a specific person whether or not they are qualified, and I think this is reason enough to make exceptions to a strict, across the board meritocracy policy (which I am generally in favor of).

    Why didn't he groom someone else the instant the heir started fucking up? Companies do have access to various personnel who could have taken over. Family isn't the only option in this situation. Sucks it wouldn't stay in the family's hands but that's the heir's fault for being incompetent not the company's.

    I asked myself the same thing. And now it isn't even owned by the family, let alone run by it. And of course, he cut his siblings who did not own shares out of the deal entirely. It was a bad situation.

    So then why are you arguing for the perpetuation of this system? All the evidence you bring out to defend letting rich kids jump the line proves it doesn't work so I'm just a bit confused here.

    Why is it the government's job to subsidize the rich? Why is socialism bad when it helps the poor, but to be applauded when it benefits the rich?

    I'm not anymore, but when I was advocating this position, all I was trying to say was (1) there are companies which will be run by the heir, no matter how qualified, (2) if those businesses fail, a lot of people will be hurt and therefore, letting these heirs into college even if they do not meet the merit requirements may be a net gain. But I actually prefer the argument that if the business is being handed to someone who cannot run it then it should fail, which is why I dropped the original argument.

    7zh9uu9etcor.jpg
    Chanus wrote:
    It's been a butt come true! I get to work with the absolute best boobs in the business. What more could a money ask for? Kids, aim for the freeloaders !

    @chanus
  • ronyaronya Arrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    sounds like an argument for competitive management in some way!

    If nontrivial proportions of the nation's capital stock are uncontestably owned by a handful of individuals, I daresay they are exercising price-setting power, therefore nontrivial price externalities, and therefore state intervention is justified even on utilitarian libertarian grounds (but not, I guess, deontologically libertarian ones).

  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Calixtus wrote: »
    I do recognize that this kind of private dynastic wealth is extremely rare, and I do generally want companies which are inefficient to go under, but it just seems like letting the kid with his name on the building into your "pure merit" school so that the family business doesn't go under (assuming it otherwise runs well and at a profit) is so low cost to society that it isn't neccessarily a bad thing. This is not the most principled argument, but sometimes you have to just accept that a course of action may be beneficial to society, even though you can't base it on a broadly derived normative principle.
    A) There's an odd assumption in there that as long as the kid is rich enough, his merit is irrelevant to whether he will actually manage to graduate - whether he will actually manage to benefit from the education offered. This is, I'd say, not a valid assumption.

    B) If he has capital but lacks competence he should do things the capitalist way and pay an agent with competence to act in his stead. The idea that he would need the education himself meshes poorly with the capitalist framework.

    It's, like, socialism, except only for rich people for the purpose of protecting corporate entities rather than individuals.
    ronya wrote: »
    Lawndart wrote: »
    You can effectively cut this "slack" by allowing those who have the means or the capacity to succeed and not just let every Tom, Dick and Harry go.

    Or you could make college acceptance strictly merit-based, since there's no real social benefit to providing a college education to everyone with parents wealthy enough to afford tuition.

    I am not sure this is true. For example, if a family has a vast fortune and owns companies, estates with lots of staff, etc. then it is probably a good thing to make sure that the heir to the fortune is educated enough to run the whole empire, otherwise the while thing may fall apart and lots of people may lose their jobs.

    These cases are, by definition, pretty rare.

    Happily developed economies tend to have fewer situations where inheritance has a possibly massive detrimental impact on the lives of many, in part because publicly-run corporations with dispersed shareholdership have better management on average than family-run ones.

    And in addition to the points I made above, I have a feeling that the heirs to the fortune 500 aren't going to be going to state schools anytime soon.

    Well, that is the winning argument right there!

    I do recognize that this kind of private dynastic wealth is extremely rare, and I do generally want companies which are inefficient to go under, but it just seems like letting the kid with his name on the building into your "pure merit" school so that the family business doesn't go under (assuming it otherwise runs well and at a profit) is so low cost to society that it isn't neccessarily a bad thing. This is not the most principled argument, but sometimes you have to just accept that a course of action may be beneficial to society, even though you can't base it on a broadly derived normative principle.

    Why doesn't the hypothetical kid learn how the company works by spending several years working at different levels in the company? Why do they have to go to get a college education, when the business itself and the years of experience of it's employees are entirely accessible to them? Why wouldn't that be better for the business, the hypothetical kid and society as a whole?

    I agree that these are all good reasons that the heir should just hire someone to do the job, but that solution may not always be available in practice, since families are not always comfortable putting someone else in charge of the family business. This is clearly irrational behaviour, but since we have to accept this reality in at least some cases, in those cases I think we are better off educating the heir as well as we can, both through formal education and through getting on the job experience.

    But again, wouldn't this hypothetical Incompetent Hamlet be going to a private school rather than a state school? Private colleges can do whatever (though they shouldn't), this discussion is mostly concerned with the state system.

    Yes, but the meritocracy arguments seemed to be focusing on education as a whole, not just the public sector. I agree 100% that the people in this position (and I literally have one in my family. . .) will go to private schools.

    Ah, yes. There's very little we can do about the private sector, though.

    All my comments have been about handling the state system.

    I would like to see a meritocracy across the board, but I'm also not against letting Rich Kids pay their way in, so long as it's not to the detriment of students who deserve a place more.

    It's not our job to make sure Incompetent Hamlet doesn't fuck up his company. If it's big enough to hurt the economy like that, it's public, and the shareholders will cull the wheat from the chaff.

    Here is the story from in my family, fuzzied up a little to keep it from being identifiable.

    I had an uncle who was a self made man. Came up from nothing, and without even having a college education he built a big, important company worth a lot of money, and which employees a lot of people in America and abroad. The Company is private, and my uncle and his wife owned it all. So eventually my uncle wanted to retire, and tried putting his son (who had been groomed for the job his whole life) in charge of a division. It was a disaster, and the whole division nearly went out of business. So my uncle stayed on, and continued to work until the day he was literally too ill to work anymore. Around the time that my uncle got too sick to run the company, his son (who was now in charge) made a deal to sell the company to a competitor (who proceeded to fire a number of employees), leading to a terrible feud.

    This is not an example where the heir could not get into college (he went to a private school) but it does show that, for good or for ill, there are ridiculous situations like this where the fate of a company (and its employees) is literally going to be in the hands of a specific person whether or not they are qualified, and I think this is reason enough to make exceptions to a strict, across the board meritocracy policy (which I am generally in favor of).

    Why didn't he groom someone else the instant the heir started fucking up? Companies do have access to various personnel who could have taken over. Family isn't the only option in this situation. Sucks it wouldn't stay in the family's hands but that's the heir's fault for being incompetent not the company's.

    I asked myself the same thing. And now it isn't even owned by the family, let alone run by it. And of course, he cut his siblings who did not own shares out of the deal entirely. It was a bad situation.

    So then why are you arguing for the perpetuation of this system? All the evidence you bring out to defend letting rich kids jump the line proves it doesn't work so I'm just a bit confused here.

    Why is it the government's job to subsidize the rich? Why is socialism bad when it helps the poor, but to be applauded when it benefits the rich?

    I'm not anymore, but when I was advocating this position, all I was trying to say was (1) there are companies which will be run by the heir, no matter how qualified, (2) if those businesses fail, a lot of people will be hurt and therefore, letting these heirs into college even if they do not meet the merit requirements may be a net gain. But I actually prefer the argument that if the business is being handed to someone who cannot run it then it should fail, which is why I dropped the original argument.

    Ah, okay then. I must have missed a post somewhere.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    ronya wrote: »
    sounds like an argument for competitive management in some way!

    If nontrivial proportions of the nation's capital stock are uncontestably owned by a handful of individuals, I daresay they are exercising price-setting power, therefore nontrivial price externalities, and therefore state intervention is justified even on utilitarian libertarian grounds (but not, I guess, deontologically libertarian ones).

    There's another kind?

  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    ronya wrote: »
    sounds like an argument for competitive management in some way!

    If nontrivial proportions of the nation's capital stock are uncontestably owned by a handful of individuals, I daresay they are exercising price-setting power, therefore nontrivial price externalities, and therefore state intervention is justified even on utilitarian libertarian grounds (but not, I guess, deontologically libertarian ones).

    Off topic, but I have never understood why price fixing is alright on the labor side (unions) but not on the production side. Personally, I think all price fixing is anticompetitive and should not be permitted, but a lot of people seem comfortable with one but not the other.

    7zh9uu9etcor.jpg
    Chanus wrote:
    It's been a butt come true! I get to work with the absolute best boobs in the business. What more could a money ask for? Kids, aim for the freeloaders !

    @chanus
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    ronya wrote: »
    sounds like an argument for competitive management in some way!

    If nontrivial proportions of the nation's capital stock are uncontestably owned by a handful of individuals, I daresay they are exercising price-setting power, therefore nontrivial price externalities, and therefore state intervention is justified even on utilitarian libertarian grounds (but not, I guess, deontologically libertarian ones).

    Off topic, but I have never understood why price fixing is alright on the labor side (unions) but not on the production side. Personally, I think all price fixing is anticompetitive and should not be permitted, but a lot of people seem comfortable with one but not the other.

    Honest question: Does price fixing on the labor side mean anything other than wages?

    I ask because I don't know but I would point out that I don't trust companies not to fuck over their workers if they have the chance because contrary to popular belief, corporations exist to make a profit. This is good, but labor rights should be respected. There won't be a market if the workers are too poor to buy anything.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • Just_Bri_ThanksJust_Bri_Thanks Seething with rage from a handbasket.Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited February 2012
    Companies treating thier workers as nothing more than an expense to be minimised is genuinely infuriating to me.

    My stance is "I know you don't care because you make six figures in compensation and have a golden parachute, but this is my LIFE you are traying to screw me out of."

    Just_Bri_Thanks on
    Some days I just want to smack people with a rolled up newspaper. Or a phone book.
    A folding chair is looking like an attractive option right now too...
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    ronya wrote: »
    sounds like an argument for competitive management in some way!

    If nontrivial proportions of the nation's capital stock are uncontestably owned by a handful of individuals, I daresay they are exercising price-setting power, therefore nontrivial price externalities, and therefore state intervention is justified even on utilitarian libertarian grounds (but not, I guess, deontologically libertarian ones).

    Off topic, but I have never understood why price fixing is alright on the labor side (unions) but not on the production side. Personally, I think all price fixing is anticompetitive and should not be permitted, but a lot of people seem comfortable with one but not the other.

    Unions don't engage in price fixing. They negotiate with management to set wages.

  • ronyaronya Arrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    ronya wrote: »
    sounds like an argument for competitive management in some way!

    If nontrivial proportions of the nation's capital stock are uncontestably owned by a handful of individuals, I daresay they are exercising price-setting power, therefore nontrivial price externalities, and therefore state intervention is justified even on utilitarian libertarian grounds (but not, I guess, deontologically libertarian ones).

    Off topic, but I have never understood why price fixing is alright on the labor side (unions) but not on the production side. Personally, I think all price fixing is anticompetitive and should not be permitted, but a lot of people seem comfortable with one but not the other.

    a popular narrative at the present is the countervailing-power sort of idea, that management already inevitably exercises price-setting power and labour negotiates together to counteract that

  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    shryke wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    sounds like an argument for competitive management in some way!

    If nontrivial proportions of the nation's capital stock are uncontestably owned by a handful of individuals, I daresay they are exercising price-setting power, therefore nontrivial price externalities, and therefore state intervention is justified even on utilitarian libertarian grounds (but not, I guess, deontologically libertarian ones).

    Off topic, but I have never understood why price fixing is alright on the labor side (unions) but not on the production side. Personally, I think all price fixing is anticompetitive and should not be permitted, but a lot of people seem comfortable with one but not the other.

    Unions don't engage in price fixing. They negotiate with management to set wages.

    If you have a closed shop, then the only available source of labor is union employees who have colluded to only work for a single set price. I don't really see it as that different from all of the soda companies agreeing to charge $5 for a 2 liter bottle.

    7zh9uu9etcor.jpg
    Chanus wrote:
    It's been a butt come true! I get to work with the absolute best boobs in the business. What more could a money ask for? Kids, aim for the freeloaders !

    @chanus
  • Just_Bri_ThanksJust_Bri_Thanks Seething with rage from a handbasket.Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited February 2012
    If you have a closed shop, then the only available source of labor is union employees who have colluded to only work for a single set price. I don't really see it as that different from all of the soda companies agreeing to charge $5 for a 2 liter bottle.

    That isn't how it works, and the insinuation that it is, is insulting to say the least.

    Just_Bri_Thanks on
    Some days I just want to smack people with a rolled up newspaper. Or a phone book.
    A folding chair is looking like an attractive option right now too...
  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    If you have a closed shop, then the only available source of labor is union employees who have colluded to only work for a single set price. I don't really see it as that different from all of the soda companies agreeing to charge $5 for a 2 liter bottle.

    That isn't how it works, and the insinuation that it is, is insulting to say the least.

    Union contracts typically set out seperate wage scales for all of the positions which employees covered by the bargaining agreement. The cost of labor for those jobs is fixed by the contract, and an individual laborer cannot negotiate up or down. What is insulting here?

    7zh9uu9etcor.jpg
    Chanus wrote:
    It's been a butt come true! I get to work with the absolute best boobs in the business. What more could a money ask for? Kids, aim for the freeloaders !

    @chanus
  • Captain CarrotCaptain Carrot Alexandria, VARegistered User regular
    Remember when this thread was about Arizona's retarded education bill?

  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    If you have a closed shop, then the only available source of labor is union employees who have colluded to only work for a single set price. I don't really see it as that different from all of the soda companies agreeing to charge $5 for a 2 liter bottle.

    That isn't how it works, and the insinuation that it is, is insulting to say the least.

    Union contracts typically set out seperate wage scales for all of the positions which employees covered by the bargaining agreement. The cost of labor for those jobs is fixed by the contract, and an individual laborer cannot negotiate up or down. What is insulting here?

    The way you phrased it makes it sound like the employees are just gathering around to push the boss around cause they're a bunch of jealous, greedy slags instead of the reality that unions evolved out of the very real fact that management will often take advantage of workers.

    The second way you phrased it is fine, the first makes you sound kind of like an asshole.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • bowenbowen How you doin'? Registered User regular
    That really isn't how it works. Union workers don't necessarily make the same wage all around, but, starting wages are fixed, and there's a guarantee of a certain wage increase, and catch up for older workers if the new hires need to be given more money (to attract workers).

    If you are an exemplary employee, you can get raises above and beyond what the bulk of the staff gets. However this is rare because union shops exist for a reason. They treat you like ass.

    Ladies.
  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    bowen wrote: »
    That really isn't how it works. Union workers don't necessarily make the same wage all around, but, starting wages are fixed, and there's a guarantee of a certain wage increase, and catch up for older workers if the new hires need to be given more money (to attract workers).

    If you are an exemplary employee, you can get raises above and beyond what the bulk of the staff gets. However this is rare because union shops exist for a reason. They treat you like ass.

    That depends on the contract. Many union contracts I have read only allow seniority based raises.

    7zh9uu9etcor.jpg
    Chanus wrote:
    It's been a butt come true! I get to work with the absolute best boobs in the business. What more could a money ask for? Kids, aim for the freeloaders !

    @chanus
  • bowenbowen How you doin'? Registered User regular
    bowen wrote: »
    That really isn't how it works. Union workers don't necessarily make the same wage all around, but, starting wages are fixed, and there's a guarantee of a certain wage increase, and catch up for older workers if the new hires need to be given more money (to attract workers).

    If you are an exemplary employee, you can get raises above and beyond what the bulk of the staff gets. However this is rare because union shops exist for a reason. They treat you like ass.

    That depends on the contract. Many union contracts I have read only allow seniority based raises.

    Probably manufacturing/packaging/shipping jobs. Once you get into unions for skilled workers, things change crazily. Especially for trained professionals with degrees.

    Ladies.
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited February 2012
    shryke wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    sounds like an argument for competitive management in some way!

    If nontrivial proportions of the nation's capital stock are uncontestably owned by a handful of individuals, I daresay they are exercising price-setting power, therefore nontrivial price externalities, and therefore state intervention is justified even on utilitarian libertarian grounds (but not, I guess, deontologically libertarian ones).

    Off topic, but I have never understood why price fixing is alright on the labor side (unions) but not on the production side. Personally, I think all price fixing is anticompetitive and should not be permitted, but a lot of people seem comfortable with one but not the other.

    Unions don't engage in price fixing. They negotiate with management to set wages.

    If you have a closed shop, then the only available source of labor is union employees who have colluded to only work for a single set price. I don't really see it as that different from all of the soda companies agreeing to charge $5 for a 2 liter bottle.

    Of course you don't.

    In reality it's not the same because negotiation still needs to take place. The Union, after all, still wants their jobs.

    Basically, if your analogy worked, why do unions even have to negotiate? How do you negotiate price fixing?

    shryke on
  • LolkenLolken Registered User, __BANNED USERS
    Let's take this hypothetical:

    Two students are up for a place in Any State University. One is from a lower/middle class background. He'll need scholarships and grants to be able to afford to attend. Throughout high school he worked his ass off, saved up some money by working part time, took some dual enrollment courses, did some extracurriculars, and got a 3.7 GPA.

    Student 2 is a rich kid, did well in school but not fantastic, and doesn't quite have the grades to get in on his own merits. Let's say he also played a sport and maybe was in a club or something. Took some upper level classes, was a solid B- student. But he's also the heir apparent to a big corporation and will one day be responsible for taking care of that corporation because his father won't hear of appointing a CEO from outside of the paternal line.

    We should let which student in?

    Student one should seek the route of patronage/adoption to get further in life. Otherwise having a student in massive debt is not what a society needs.

    Student two should be automatically let in not only because he can afford it but because the nations wealth depends on his success.

    This is the kind of reasoning that explains why you're in Canada studying, and why no one in particular is looking forward to his scholarship at Astana (or Tashkent, or Ashgabat, or Bishkek) University. Not because of your elitism, which, against the majority of the boards, I'm all in favor of; but because of the nature of your elitism, the kind of elitism based in blood, not in actions. Student 1 is a brilliant fellow, while student 2 is completely average - and his father is the silliest of all gooses. It's a shame that one brilliant Turkmen who was born in the lower classes can't afford the chance you're having, a chance that's apparently been wasted on a would-be Seljuk sultan who studies only to further his own prejudices and his own - unfairly - exalted social position.

    "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely" - Lord Acton.

    "Money tends to corrupt, and lots of money corrupts lotsely" - Me.
  • GaddezGaddez Registered User regular
    It's a shame that one brilliant Turkmen who was born in the lower classes can't afford the chance you're having, a chance that's apparently been wasted on a would-be Seljuk sultan who studies only to further his own prejudices and his own - unfairly - exalted social position.

    That is life, some remain herders others own the flocks.

    It's a bullshit, inbred life that is completely outmoded in the modern era.

    Richy wrote: »
    But I think the resistance I’m getting more has to do with “rawr! Loklar said it! Rage!” than anything else.

    No, it has to do with the fact that you're done nothing but throw lies, blatant flasehoods, and downright dumb statements at us so far.
  • Kipling217Kipling217 Registered User regular
    And you want the rest of the world to follow your silly goose ways.

    Seljuk leaders used to be fucking statesmen and conquers chosen not by their heritage, but by their actions on the field of battle. They forged the tribal structure you worship out of nothing and all they got to show for it is you...

    They would weep at their misfortune.

    Communicating from the last of the Babylon Stations.
  • OlorinOlorin Just call me Mara, please! Registered User regular
    Gaddez wrote: »
    It's a shame that one brilliant Turkmen who was born in the lower classes can't afford the chance you're having, a chance that's apparently been wasted on a would-be Seljuk sultan who studies only to further his own prejudices and his own - unfairly - exalted social position.

    That is life, some remain herders others own the flocks.

    It's a bullshit, inbred life that is completely outmoded in the modern era.

    He seeks to preserve his standing at the expense of others. He was born into wealth (I assume) and so favors ideas that protect his standing. If forced to compete on actual merit, no doubt he would be overtaken by much more talented individuals (I doubt he would agree with me, I'm sure he believe's he is innately superior due to his ability of having been born to the right parents). So, naturally, he would rather be able to edge out more talented individuals simply on the basis that he has more money.

  • PhillisherePhillishere Registered User regular
    It's a shame that one brilliant Turkmen who was born in the lower classes can't afford the chance you're having, a chance that's apparently been wasted on a would-be Seljuk sultan who studies only to further his own prejudices and his own - unfairly - exalted social position.

    That is life, some remain herders others own the flocks.

    And sometimes, the herders pick up AKs and put the flock owners against the wall. Enjoy the 21st century, dude. You are going to have a rough ride.

  • GaddezGaddez Registered User regular
    Olorin wrote: »
    Gaddez wrote: »
    It's a shame that one brilliant Turkmen who was born in the lower classes can't afford the chance you're having, a chance that's apparently been wasted on a would-be Seljuk sultan who studies only to further his own prejudices and his own - unfairly - exalted social position.

    That is life, some remain herders others own the flocks.

    It's a bullshit, inbred life that is completely outmoded in the modern era.

    He seeks to preserve his standing at the expense of others. He was born into wealth (I assume) and so favors ideas that protect his standing. If forced to compete on actual merit, no doubt he would be overtaken by much more talented individuals (I doubt he would agree with me, I'm sure he believe's he is innately superior due to his ability of having been born to the right parents). So, naturally, he would rather be able to edge out more talented individuals simply on the basis that he has more money.
    Sure, and it's perfectly normal to want to ensure the quality of life that you enjoy. The problem, is that doing so borders on a sociopathic disconnect in this particular instance.

    Richy wrote: »
    But I think the resistance I’m getting more has to do with “rawr! Loklar said it! Rage!” than anything else.

    No, it has to do with the fact that you're done nothing but throw lies, blatant flasehoods, and downright dumb statements at us so far.
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    It's a shame that one brilliant Turkmen who was born in the lower classes can't afford the chance you're having, a chance that's apparently been wasted on a would-be Seljuk sultan who studies only to further his own prejudices and his own - unfairly - exalted social position.

    That is life, some remain herders others own the flocks.

    And sometimes, the herders pick up AKs and put the flock owners against the wall. Enjoy the 21st century, dude. You are going to have a rough ride.

    Happened in the 18th century, as well. Only they used guillotines. :twisted:

  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    shryke wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    sounds like an argument for competitive management in some way!

    If nontrivial proportions of the nation's capital stock are uncontestably owned by a handful of individuals, I daresay they are exercising price-setting power, therefore nontrivial price externalities, and therefore state intervention is justified even on utilitarian libertarian grounds (but not, I guess, deontologically libertarian ones).

    Off topic, but I have never understood why price fixing is alright on the labor side (unions) but not on the production side. Personally, I think all price fixing is anticompetitive and should not be permitted, but a lot of people seem comfortable with one but not the other.

    Unions don't engage in price fixing. They negotiate with management to set wages.

    If you have a closed shop, then the only available source of labor is union employees who have colluded to only work for a single set price. I don't really see it as that different from all of the soda companies agreeing to charge $5 for a 2 liter bottle.

    Of course you don't.

    In reality it's not the same because negotiation still needs to take place. The Union, after all, still wants their jobs.

    Basically, if your analogy worked, why do unions even have to negotiate? How do you negotiate price fixing?

    You are right. It is more like the national soda council elected one person to negotiate the price of all soda with Walmart. Either way, you are takin away the ability for the market to determine pricing, by eliminatin all competition.

    7zh9uu9etcor.jpg
    Chanus wrote:
    It's been a butt come true! I get to work with the absolute best boobs in the business. What more could a money ask for? Kids, aim for the freeloaders !

    @chanus
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    ronya wrote: »
    sounds like an argument for competitive management in some way!

    If nontrivial proportions of the nation's capital stock are uncontestably owned by a handful of individuals, I daresay they are exercising price-setting power, therefore nontrivial price externalities, and therefore state intervention is justified even on utilitarian libertarian grounds (but not, I guess, deontologically libertarian ones).

    Off topic, but I have never understood why price fixing is alright on the labor side (unions) but not on the production side. Personally, I think all price fixing is anticompetitive and should not be permitted, but a lot of people seem comfortable with one but not the other.

    Unions don't engage in price fixing. They negotiate with management to set wages.

    If you have a closed shop, then the only available source of labor is union employees who have colluded to only work for a single set price. I don't really see it as that different from all of the soda companies agreeing to charge $5 for a 2 liter bottle.

    Of course you don't.

    In reality it's not the same because negotiation still needs to take place. The Union, after all, still wants their jobs.

    Basically, if your analogy worked, why do unions even have to negotiate? How do you negotiate price fixing?

    You are right. It is more like the national soda council elected one person to negotiate the price of all soda with Walmart. Either way, you are takin away the ability for the market to determine pricing, by eliminatin all competition.

    In that situation the companies would have an even bigger advantage over their workers than they do now. No thank you. The market should not become a place for workers to be treated in a social darwinist atmosphere. That's a slipperly slope to serfdom.

  • Kipling217Kipling217 Registered User regular
    Oh, I guess I don't know everything about the Seljuk. Then again they are an obscure people of little importance these days. I was thinking more of the Mongols and conflated the two. Ghenghis Khan certainly didn't start out as someone chosen by blood.

    In either case you are a minor remnant of a much more glorious heritage.

    Communicating from the last of the Babylon Stations.
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    edited February 2012
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    Oh, I guess I don't know everything about the Seljuk. Then again they are an obscure people of little importance these days. I was thinking more of the Mongols and conflated the two. Ghenghis Khan certainly didn't start out as someone chosen by blood.

    In either case you are a minor remnant of a much more glorious heritage.

    Once again you are completely wrong. Chinggis Khan was related by previous proven Khans whose fame reached far and wide in Mongolia. The idea that he didn't come from a linage is completely outdated. His ancestor had their own empire in 1161 and he simply recreated the strong empire that Khabul Khan had. The leaders of the various tribes while certainly came under pressure from his violent methods were also drawn to him because he was one of the highest ranking nobles in Mongolia.

    I seriously suggest you open a book or at least in the minimum open Wikipedia to get yourself knowledgeable.

    Honestly, who cares about some long dead dynasty? If you're studying in the west, you're going to have to get used to the idea that none of us give a shit about who your ancestors were.

    We believe in equal rights for all mankind and equality under the law. We're not perfect and we've made mistakes, but that is the goal of liberal democracy.

    To borrow and turn phrase from my less cultured compatriots, Democracy: love it or leave it.

    AManFromEarth on
    Lh96QHG.png
  • emp123emp123 Registered User regular
    It's a shame that one brilliant Turkmen who was born in the lower classes can't afford the chance you're having, a chance that's apparently been wasted on a would-be Seljuk sultan who studies only to further his own prejudices and his own - unfairly - exalted social position.

    That is life, some remain herders others own the flocks.

    And sometimes, the herders pick up AKs and put the flock owners against the wall. Enjoy the 21st century, dude. You are going to have a rough ride.

    Happened in the 18th century, as well. Only they used guillotines. :twisted:

    The AK47 guillotine, when you absolutely positively got to kill behead every motherfucker in the room, accept no substitutes.



    More on topic:

    It totally blows my mind that a guy who never went to college (dropped out because his family had health issues?) thinks its a good idea to punish people who go to college and then drop out.


    I dont know if America has gotten crazier in the last, say 10 years, or if its always been this fucked in the head stupid, but jesus christ.

    camo_sig2.png
  • Kipling217Kipling217 Registered User regular
    I notice he spends a lot of time talking about the glory days of the pasts and ignoring everything about the crappy present.

    Communicating from the last of the Babylon Stations.
Sign In or Register to comment.