David Guiza Posted 14 February 2018 Posted 14 February 2018 3 hours ago, Bryn said: I don't disagree but there are too many young people being told their only option is University and they're being charged a lot of money for something which ultimately they're not benefiting from and I think it would be for the greater good if there was a reduction in the overall number of degrees courses and a focus on widening access to higher quality training and education in general. As I've said I wouldn't slash everything non-vocational but the status quo is benefiting the universities and noone else. In principle I think higher education of all kinds should be free and ubiquitous but in practical terms thats very challenging to provide and it's a major issue that so many people are feeling compelled to pay thousands and have little to show for it afterwards. I definitely agree that University is almost shoved down the throats of some young people, but I also think the reasoning behind that also needs to be looked into. The alternatives aren't necessarily particularly great either apprenticeships paying ridiculously low wages, unpaid internships, jobs demanding 3 years experience etc etc. I know so many people whom could have gone to University and didn't because of a lack of guidance, and plenty whom did go to University and effectively wasted 3 years of their lives for the same reason. If any party can radically adapt the opportunities and guidance given for young people in general, and give it a fresh approach then I think they get the backing of a large percentage of people. I'm glad that you think higher education should be free, or at least as affordable as possible. The mindset that University is a privilege and not a right is sad and almost certainly puts some people off going. 2 hours ago, Rogstanley said: I don't disagree that education of any sort can be beneficial, but doesn't the fact that those examples went on to be successful in things not related to their degree actually prove the degrees were pointless? Butterfly effect notwithstanding, Rowan Atkinson would still have been a talented comic without his engineering degree, Chris Martin would still have had an aptitude for producing generic pop songs without his Ancient World Studies degree. How many people have gone to study liberal arts and by doing so missed their true calling as a world class engineer? I see where you are coming from but I would have to disagree, personally. I would argue that by going to University Rowan Atkinson was able to meet like minded people from all across the country whom helped shape him as a person and his comedy/career also. Something that almost certainly wouldn't have happened if he was pushed away from academia to follow his artistic side straight away. The list of successful people who studied completely abstract subjects to their profession is proof alone. Many people come out of University as a completely different people, for the better, they come out of their individual shells and mature hugely as a result of the environment. Yes that happens outside of University also, but I would hate to think that people are put off going to University because there is no guarantee that their degree meets the necessary requirements for a potential career. As for people missing their calling in important areas - that is always going to happen. You could argue that the person whom would have found the cure for cancer during their post compulsory education studies went on to be a manager of a large independent retailer because he/she was incorrectly advised as a teenager.
leicsmac Posted 14 February 2018 Posted 14 February 2018 19 hours ago, toddybad said: What gets me is that the tory voters always focus on engineering and similar and dismiss anything that doesn't have direct monetary value they can easily imagine. Somebody doing a drama course and going on to earn the UK millions producing a worldwide hit is beyond their comprehension. Perhaps that's the difference between left and right - the right has a complete lack of imagination and belief in their fellow men. Plenty of engineering graduates fade into nothingness. TBH I don't think either half of the HoP are that good at focusing on STEM and focus much more on the arts - the scientific fields have always been treated with contempt in the UK by the establishment - it's viewed as a peccadillo for rich boys to indulge in when they're not doing other stuff.
Strokes Posted 14 February 2018 Posted 14 February 2018 5 minutes ago, leicsmac said: TBH I don't think either half of the HoP are that good at focusing on STEM and focus much more on the arts - the scientific fields have always been treated with contempt in the UK by the establishment - it's viewed as a peccadillo for rich boys to indulge in when they're not doing other stuff. Science needs to get on and develop something cool, I’m sick of waiting for my personal rocket pack. Quit whining about no recognition and make our lives better.
leicsmac Posted 14 February 2018 Posted 14 February 2018 3 minutes ago, Strokes said: Science needs to get on and develop something cool, I’m sick of waiting for my personal rocket pack. Quit whining about no recognition and make our lives better. I know - we should have had hoverboards three years ago, for goodness sake. 1
Buce Posted 14 February 2018 Posted 14 February 2018 16 minutes ago, Strokes said: Science needs to get on and develop something cool, I’m sick of waiting for my personal rocket pack. Quit whining about no recognition and make our lives better. Keep up, boy:
Fox Ulike Posted 14 February 2018 Posted 14 February 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, Innovindil said: The eu isn't a free market. Didn't think it needed explaining tbh. An example that's all the rage right now, if I want to buy cheaper chicken from America right now, I can not. It does need explaining because you clearly don’t understand it yourself! The reason you can't buy chlorinated chicken from America is because of Food hygiene or animal welfare or some other regulation. It's absolutely nothing to do with economics or free markets. We will still have animal welfare laws and food standards agencies when we leave the EU!! I'm convinced that half the people who voted Leave still have no actual idea of what the EU does! Edited 14 February 2018 by Fox Ulike
Buce Posted 14 February 2018 Posted 14 February 2018 5 minutes ago, Fox Ulike said: It does need explaining because you clearly don’t understand it yourself! The reason you can't buy chlorinated chicken from America is because of Food hygiene or animal welfare or some other regulation. It's absolutely nothing to do with economics or free markets. We will still have animal welfare laws and food standards agencies when we leave the EU!! I'm convinced that half the people who voted Leave still have no actual idea of what the EU does! Only half? I think you’re being overly generous, mate. 1
Fox Ulike Posted 14 February 2018 Posted 14 February 2018 9 minutes ago, Buce said: Only half? I think you’re being overly generous, mate. True that. I would have put myself in that category too before the vote. The main reason I voted remain was that I didn’t fully understand the consequences of leaving, and there was no clear idea of what the benefits of non-membership were. I reckon about 70 or 80% of people were in the same boat before the vote. The only tangible affect of the EU was immigration. Nobody was complaining about not being able to buy chlorinated chicken when LCFC were crowned Premiership Champions. 18 months on and very little has changed, but people talk like access to chlorinated food is a basic human right!
Guest Kopfkino Posted 14 February 2018 Posted 14 February 2018 19 minutes ago, Fox Ulike said: It does need explaining because you clearly don’t understand it yourself! The reason you can't buy chlorinated chicken from America is because of Food hygiene or animal welfare or some other regulation. It's absolutely nothing to do with economics or free markets. We will still have animal welfare laws and food standards agencies when we leave the EU!! I'm convinced that half the people who voted Leave still have no actual idea of what the EU does! So it's precisely not a free market. I am less free when buying chicken compared to our American friends. If it's regulated it's not a free market. And unfortunately it's the poor that suffer.
Innovindil Posted 14 February 2018 Posted 14 February 2018 27 minutes ago, Fox Ulike said: It does need explaining because you clearly don’t understand it yourself! The reason you can't buy chlorinated chicken from America is because of Food hygiene or animal welfare or some other regulation. It's absolutely nothing to do with economics or free markets. We will still have animal welfare laws and food standards agencies when we leave the EU!! I'm convinced that half the people who voted Leave still have no actual idea of what the EU does! Are you daft lad. If the market is regulated to a point where I can't buy something because of it, then it is not a free market is it, it's a restricted market.
Guest MattP Posted 14 February 2018 Posted 14 February 2018 17 minutes ago, Kopfkino said: So it's precisely not a free market. Im less free when buying chicken compared to our American friends. If it's regulated it's not a free market. And unfortunately it's the poor that suffer. Not just in terms of consumerism either, the over-regulated single market also puts tariffs on imports from the poorest countries in the World. Hits the least wealthy farmers Africa to protect wealthy ones in France and Spain. It's astounding so many on the left can defend that but they continue to do so.
Fox Ulike Posted 14 February 2018 Posted 14 February 2018 2 minutes ago, Kopfkino said: So it's precisely not a free market. I am less free when buying chicken compared to our American friends. If it's regulated it's not a free market. And unfortunately it's the poor that suffer. Nonsense. A free market wouldn’t work without any regulation. It would be lawless.That’s fairly obvious. I think it’s Anarchy that you're talking about i 4 minutes ago, Innovindil said: Are you daft lad. If the market is regulated to a point where I can't buy something because of it, then it is not a free market is it, it's a restricted market. OK yes agreed it's a restricted/regulated market. As is the US market. Drugs is the glaringly obvious example. You don't have the freedom to sell drugs to schoolchildren. Most products have to comply with some sort of standards. Even in the US. It's not lawless it's the same as EU, just less regulated or restricted. That's fair enough. But my question is: why would you want less regulation? What are the advantages of that? If you want a totally unregulated market then you might have to go and live in Sierra Leone or somewhere. 1 1
Guest Kopfkino Posted 14 February 2018 Posted 14 February 2018 3 minutes ago, MattP said: Not just in terms of consumerism either, the over-regulated single market also puts tariffs on imports from the poorest countries in the World. Hits the least wealthy farmers Africa to protect wealthy ones in France and Spain. It's astounding so many on the left can defend that but they continue to do so. Of course the EU is excellent at keeping poor countries poor and then announcing some scheme to make it look otherwise. A lot of raw materials have no tariffs but as soon as they are transformed into value-added goods a tariff is put on them. So the EU ensures it's cheaper for its own industries to gather raw materials and protects them by stopping any outside challenge. 1 minute ago, Fox Ulike said: Nonsense. A free market wouldn’t work without any regulation. It would be lawless.That’s fairly obvious. I think it’s Anarchy that you're talking about i OK yes agreed it's a restricted/regulated market. As is the US market. Drugs is the glaringly obvious example. You don't have the freedom to sell drugs to schoolchildren. Most products have to comply with some sort of standards. Even in the US. It's not lawless it's the same as EU, just less regulated or restricted. That's fair enough. But my question is: why would you want less regulation? What are the advantages of that? If you want a totally unregulated market then you might have to go and live in Sierra Leone or somewhere. Yes of course I was on about total anarchy and that is all exactly what I said. Because nuance never has existed in your reading of anything.
Fox Ulike Posted 14 February 2018 Posted 14 February 2018 2 minutes ago, Kopfkino said: Of course the EU is excellent at keeping poor countries poor and then announcing some scheme to make it look otherwise. A lot of raw materials have no tariffs but as soon as they are transformed into value-added goods a tariff is put on them. So the EU ensures it's cheaper for its own industries to gather raw materials and protects them by stopping any outside challenge. Yes of course I was on about total anarchy and that is all exactly what I said. Because nuance never has existed in your reading of anything. Thanks. I think what I'm good at is helping people to follow their thinking through to it's logical conclusion. You said, "If it's regulated it's not a free market." therefore, if it's unregulated it's lawless. It's anarchy. It is annoying I know. I can understand why you went down the Sarcastic road by way of reply.
Fox Ulike Posted 14 February 2018 Posted 14 February 2018 17 minutes ago, MattP said: Not just in terms of consumerism either, the over-regulated single market also puts tariffs on imports from the poorest countries in the World. Hits the least wealthy farmers Africa to protect wealthy ones in France and Spain. It's astounding so many on the left can defend that but they continue to do so. Fair point. I think that's why opposition to Brexit really comes from the middle classes. Most well-to-do Conservative supporters aren't actually overly bothered about poor farmers in East Africa, but would rather protect the wealth of Europe. Which begs the question : who actually is still in favour of Brexit?
Guest Kopfkino Posted 14 February 2018 Posted 14 February 2018 5 minutes ago, Fox Ulike said: Thanks. I think what I'm good at is helping people to follow their thinking through to it's logical conclusion. You said, "If it's regulated it's not a free market." therefore, if it's unregulated it's lawless. It's anarchy. It is annoying I know. I can understand why you went down the Sarcastic road by way of reply. No, because apart from the very few libertarian anarchists, nobody has ever believed there is no role for basic regulation in setting the rules of the market. So it's quite safe to assume that people would not interpret such a phrase in that basic form. But evidently we're not at that level of debate and everything has to be spelt out exactly as it's meant with the lawyers looking over it with a fine-toothed comb to ensure it says exactly what was intended.
Innovindil Posted 14 February 2018 Posted 14 February 2018 36 minutes ago, Fox Ulike said: Nonsense. A free market wouldn’t work without any regulation. It would be lawless.That’s fairly obvious. I think it’s Anarchy that you're talking about i OK yes agreed it's a restricted/regulated market. As is the US market. Drugs is the glaringly obvious example. You don't have the freedom to sell drugs to schoolchildren. Most products have to comply with some sort of standards. Even in the US. It's not lawless it's the same as EU, just less regulated or restricted. That's fair enough. But my question is: why would you want less regulation? What are the advantages of that? If you want a totally unregulated market then you might have to go and live in Sierra Leone or somewhere. I'll get cheaper chicken. I don't want a completely unregulated market, I want equal access to all of the world's goods. Obviously, you need health regulations and engineering regulations, but that doesn't mean we can't have a more open market. As we've seen with the rise of Aldi, people are willing to accept lower quality goods for cheaper prices, this doesn't mean there isn't a market for the better goods, or asda and M&S and whatever would be out of business. Let the markets decide what they want, if things get sold here that are shit, people won't buy them. 1
leicsmac Posted 14 February 2018 Posted 14 February 2018 27 minutes ago, Kopfkino said: No, because apart from the very few libertarian anarchists, nobody has ever believed there is no role for basic regulation in setting the rules of the market. So it's quite safe to assume that people would not interpret such a phrase in that basic form. But evidently we're not at that level of debate and everything has to be spelt out exactly as it's meant with the lawyers looking over it with a fine-toothed comb to ensure it says exactly what was intended. Clarity of communication is important, Kopf.
Guest Posted 14 February 2018 Posted 14 February 2018 14 minutes ago, Innovindil said: I'll get cheaper chicken. I don't want a completely unregulated market, I want equal access to all of the world's goods. Obviously, you need health regulations and engineering regulations, but that doesn't mean we can't have a more open market. As we've seen with the rise of Aldi, people are willing to accept lower quality goods for cheaper prices, this doesn't mean there isn't a market for the better goods, or asda and M&S and whatever would be out of business. Let the markets decide what they want, if things get sold here that are shit, people won't buy them. People accept lower quality guess within regulation. You can see even with rules how businesses don't care about human suffering, death, illness etc if it earns then a few quid. Car manufacturers feigning emission results. Meat suppliers selling their goods with falsified dates. Oil companies suppressing their own internal global warming studies, cigarette companies paying for false studies. Not all businesses are bad. But enough are that regulation is an absolute necessity.
Innovindil Posted 14 February 2018 Posted 14 February 2018 1 hour ago, toddybad said: People accept lower quality guess within regulation. You can see even with rules how businesses don't care about human suffering, death, illness etc if it earns then a few quid. Car manufacturers feigning emission results. Meat suppliers selling their goods with falsified dates. Oil companies suppressing their own internal global warming studies, cigarette companies paying for false studies. Not all businesses are bad. But enough are that regulation is an absolute necessity. Again, I do NOT want a completely unregulated market.
Guest Posted 14 February 2018 Posted 14 February 2018 2 hours ago, Innovindil said: Again, I do NOT want a completely unregulated market. Ok. What regulation would you lose?
Guest Posted 14 February 2018 Posted 14 February 2018 (edited) 6 hours ago, David Guiza said: I definitely agree that University is almost shoved down the throats of some young people, but I also think the reasoning behind that also needs to be looked into. The alternatives aren't necessarily particularly great either apprenticeships paying ridiculously low wages, unpaid internships, jobs demanding 3 years experience etc etc. I know so many people whom could have gone to University and didn't because of a lack of guidance, and plenty whom did go to University and effectively wasted 3 years of their lives for the same reason. If any party can radically adapt the opportunities and guidance given for young people in general, and give it a fresh approach then I think they get the backing of a large percentage of people. I'm glad that you think higher education should be free, or at least as affordable as possible. The mindset that University is a privilege and not a right is sad and almost certainly puts some people off going. I see where you are coming from but I would have to disagree, personally. I would argue that by going to University Rowan Atkinson was able to meet like minded people from all across the country whom helped shape him as a person and his comedy/career also. Something that almost certainly wouldn't have happened if he was pushed away from academia to follow his artistic side straight away. The list of successful people who studied completely abstract subjects to their profession is proof alone. Many people come out of University as a completely different people, for the better, they come out of their individual shells and mature hugely as a result of the environment. Yes that happens outside of University also, but I would hate to think that people are put off going to University because there is no guarantee that their degree meets the necessary requirements for a potential career. As for people missing their calling in important areas - that is always going to happen. You could argue that the person whom would have found the cure for cancer during their post compulsory education studies went on to be a manager of a large independent retailer because he/she was incorrectly advised as a teenager. Also: University courses below PHD are simply a study in how to think.most are really about how you take in information and utilise it. The fact you haven't gone on to work in a particular field is irrelevant, the skills you've developed are what is important. Every country in the world wants a more highly educated workforce. Only the dipsticks who think the country doesn't benefit from this think otherwise. Edited 14 February 2018 by Guest
Innovindil Posted 14 February 2018 Posted 14 February 2018 51 minutes ago, toddybad said: Ok. What regulation would you lose? Muh chlorine chickens brah. If they're good enough for tens of millions of muricans, they're good enough for me.
Strokes Posted 14 February 2018 Posted 14 February 2018 5 minutes ago, Innovindil said: Muh chlorine chickens brah. If they're good enough for tens of millions of muricans, they're good enough for me. I’d quite like our weak cows to get roided up too, them steaks over the pond are amazing.
Recommended Posts