"It's nothing more than forcing you to spend your money on things that generate more domestic jobs than you would have on your own."
What a quaint image. As though governments could be more efficient in allocating scarce resources than free individuals.
As though "creating more domestic jobs" were per se a worthwhile pursuit. It isn't. If it were, you should spend all of your savings on funding make-work.
If I'm sitting on cash, you can't tax it away. You don't know I have it. It is untraceable _cash_. If you're taxing away money/assets you believe I have, then you're making me liquidate productive assets, costing jobs etc. etc.
"I suppose you must believe that every use of a dollar results in equivalent employment."
Then please say again in small but concrete words, what you meant by "Individuals have different potential and interests, but over a population of millions it averages out.". What does it mean to "average out"? How is such average actionable?
So... are you asserting that everyone has the same "potential in CS" -- with just the right amount of education it will come bubbling forth? Sorry, that is simply not credible. Go ahead and convince us otherwise.
"It's like arguing that there is no point teaching maths at school because some kids are not good at it. It makes no sense at all."
Lucky then that no made that argument. It makes sense to teach everyone some math, independent of their "potential in math", whether said potential is equal or average compared with others. How do you even measure "potential"?
"Do you have any evidence to support that hypothesis?"
*You* asserted that "potentials and interests... it averages out", whatever that means. Trying to imagine a concrete meaning, one comes up with "there is such a thing as average potential and interest". Which, even if it were true, it's irrelevant, because it is obvious from observation of routine life that different groups of people have different interests. (And no, I'm not dividing up by interest first, then discovering everyone in that group has the same interest.)
"Because you dragged value judgements into it when you started talking about potentials."
A given potential is not "inferior" to another one. I may have a great potential for standup comedy and a lousy one for bedside manner. You may have a great potential for social commentary and a lousy one for shoe shining. I would not label one or the other as "inferior". You dragged in that term: why?
And note the clever way in which the union-hated standardized-testing issue was dragged into the conversation as a bugaboo. "Of course we're racist and lazy... we might do better if it wasn't for those infernal tests"..
You're on the right track with the economic analysis. But...
"Just jack the supply up to hard that the universities have to cut fees "
Who can afford to "jack the supply up" enough to deliberately to lower prices? Governments? If it's profitable, why aren't they doing it already?
We probably also need to consider the up-shift of the demand curve due to the high subsidies that many students receive in the form of grants and low-interest loans.
Slashdot Mirror
"It's nothing more than forcing you to spend your money on things that generate more domestic jobs than you would have on your own."
What a quaint image. As though governments could be more efficient in allocating scarce resources than free individuals.
As though "creating more domestic jobs" were per se a worthwhile pursuit. It isn't. If it were, you should spend all of your savings on funding make-work.
If I'm sitting on cash, you can't tax it away. You don't know I have it. It is untraceable _cash_. If you're taxing away money/assets you believe I have, then you're making me liquidate productive assets, costing jobs etc. etc.
"I suppose you must believe that every use of a dollar results in equivalent employment."
No.
Government does not provide net employment. A "jobs bill" makes no sense.
"change change change": motte
"outlaw some political speech": bailey
See also http://slatestarcodex.com/2014...
And the A-10 can brrrrrrrt, the F-35 can't even yet.
"People exchanged something for value"
Yes, but the "something" they exchanged was a non-scarce asset, even less real than abstract financial instruments.
"It's a market."
Not really. There is no product, no scarcity, no value, it's basically monopoly money.
"No. You are totally confused."
Then please say again in small but concrete words, what you meant by "Individuals have different potential and interests, but over a population of millions it averages out.". What does it mean to "average out"? How is such average actionable?
"Companies make money creating a product that no one checks to make sure it's not bogus"
In this case, carbon credits are mandated for a product that literally doesn't exist: CO2 supposedly not emitted. Of course it's going to be a joke.
"Potential in CS."
So ... are you asserting that everyone has the same "potential in CS" -- with just the right amount of education it will come bubbling forth? Sorry, that is simply not credible. Go ahead and convince us otherwise.
"It's like arguing that there is no point teaching maths at school because some kids are not good at it. It makes no sense at all."
Lucky then that no made that argument. It makes sense to teach everyone some math, independent of their "potential in math", whether said potential is equal or average compared with others. How do you even measure "potential"?
"Do you have any evidence to support that hypothesis?"
*You* asserted that "potentials and interests ... it averages out", whatever that means. Trying to imagine a concrete meaning, one comes up with "there is such a thing as average potential and interest". Which, even if it were true, it's irrelevant, because it is obvious from observation of routine life that different groups of people have different interests. (And no, I'm not dividing up by interest first, then discovering everyone in that group has the same interest.)
"Because you dragged value judgements into it when you started talking about potentials."
A given potential is not "inferior" to another one. I may have a great potential for standup comedy and a lousy one for bedside manner. You may have a great potential for social commentary and a lousy one for shoe shining. I would not label one or the other as "inferior". You dragged in that term: why?
"Individuals have different potential and interests, but over a population of millions it averages out."
It doesn't mean that the averages over sub-populations are the averages over the whole population. Potentials and interests may well be multi-modal.
"Or are you saying that some races and genders are just inherently inferior?"
Why are you dragging value judgements like "inferior" into this?
" by putting more power in the hands of regular citizens"
You do that by freeing the regular citizens from others' power: that is by weakening the powers of the state.
"Have you seen what they're doing with them these days? It's horseshit."
Dunno, talking about common core stuff? Even then, the problem would be a *particular* standardized test rather than standardized testing per se.
"A public school education is literally worse than nothing"
Homeschooling is growing in popularity, and not just amongst the religiously inclined.
And note the clever way in which the union-hated standardized-testing issue was dragged into the conversation as a bugaboo. "Of course we're racist and lazy ... we might do better if it wasn't for those infernal tests"..
Granted completely. First step to figuring out where the costs lie is to admit that there exist costs, that it can't be "100% free".
If I'm speaking to a breatharian, I won't be doing so for long.
Aw heck, why wait till they die? Tax the old, tax the rich. "Should five per cent appear too small / Be thankful I don't take it all"
You're on the right track with the economic analysis. But...
"Just jack the supply up to hard that the universities have to cut fees "
Who can afford to "jack the supply up" enough to deliberately to lower prices? Governments? If it's profitable, why aren't they doing it already?
We probably also need to consider the up-shift of the demand curve due to the high subsidies that many students receive in the form of grants and low-interest loans.
Then in effect the student is taking a loan from himself (if a future net taxpayer) or a grant from others (if not a future net taxpayer).
"College level should be 100% free "
TANSTAAFL
"Star Wars is impossible because we can't travel faster than light."
Then ... "giant worms don't exist in asteroids"
The millionaires and billionaires have no way to extract stuff from your wallet involuntarily.
(There exist opaque, bright white, UV-resistant plastic too.)
To the extent the point was to keep heat away from the water, I wonder why they didn't go for something with a high albedo instead of black.