The News Thread

You didn't respond to what I said at all. Sure having one is better than not having one, that says nothing about the actual education represented by the diploma. They are so easy to get you need at least a bachelors to be competitive now if you don't have a tradeskill.

I did not mention actual education and you've made your position quite clear on that and Ein has responded to you in detail in the past. I am referring to only the economic and social gains by having a college degree, which undoubtedly, improve one's standing in life.

It is not more interested in profits than *any* other. Mercantilism is equally interested in profit. Creating a profits vs labor situation is a false dichotomy. Just because business schools adopted a "shareholder first" orthodoxy some decades ago doesn't mean it is the only or best/correct way of doing business.

I disagree. From it's wiki page;
  • forbidding colonies to trade with other nations
  • banning the export of gold and silver, even for payments;
  • forbidding trade to be carried in foreign ships
  • restricting domestic consumption through non-tariff barriers to trade.
Are all things that inhibit profits.

To your second part, I also think that it's false and historically inaccurate. Private corporations have only improved the benefits to its labor force by either competition or government regulation. A free market system can care about its work force, but only does so when an immigrant labor is not possible nor there isn't a shared interest in keeping poor people poor, which means making poor babies.
 
I know Ein has responded with some anecdotes about some smart undergraduates he has taught. Doesn't amount to much. I also knew some other smart students.

http://www.economist.com/news/unite...lining-value-money-their-students-not-what-it

the root of the crisis in higher education (and the evidence that investment in universities may amount to a bubble) comes down to the fact that additional value has not been created to match this extra spending. Indeed, evidence from declines in the quality of students and graduates suggests that a degree may now mean less than it once did.

For example, a federal survey showed that the literacy of college-educated citizens declined between 1992 and 2003. Only a quarter were deemed proficient, defined as “using printed and written information to function in society, to achieve one’s goals and to develop one’s knowledge and potential”. Almost a third of students these days do not take any courses that involve more than 40 pages of reading over an entire term. Moreover, students are spending measurably less time studying and more on recreation. “Workload management”, however, is studied with enthusiasm—students share online tips about “blow off” classes (those which can be avoided with no damage to grades) and which teachers are the easiest-going.

Yet neither the lack of investment in teaching nor the deficit of attention appears to have had a negative impact on grades. A remarkable 43% of all grades at four-year universities are As, an increase of 28 percentage points since 1960. Grade point averages rose from about 2.52 in the 1950s to 3.11 in 2006.

At this point a sceptic could argue that none of this matters much, since students are paid a handsome premium for their degree and on the whole earn back their investment over a lifetime. While this is still broadly true, there are a number of important caveats. One is that it is easily possible to overspend on one’s education: just ask the hundreds of thousands of law graduates who have not found work as lawyers. And this premium is of little comfort to the 9.1% of borrowers who in 2011 had defaulted on their federal student loans within two years of graduating. There are 200 colleges and universities where the three-year default rate is 30% or more.

Another issue is that the salary gap between those with only a high-school diploma and those with a university degree is created by the plummeting value of the diploma, rather than by soaring graduate salaries. After adjusting for inflation, graduates earned no more in 2007 than they did in 1979. Young graduates facing a decline in earnings over the past decade (16% for women, 19% for men), and a lot more debt, are unlikely to feel particularly cheered by the argument that, over a lifetime, they would be even worse off without a degree than with one.



  • forbidding colonies to trade with other nations
  • banning the export of gold and silver, even for payments;
  • forbidding trade to be carried in foreign ships
  • restricting domestic consumption through non-tariff barriers to trade.
"
mer·can·til·ism
ˈmərkəntiˌlizəm,-ˌtē-,-ˌtī-/
noun
noun: mercantilism
belief in the benefits of profitable trading; commercialism.
  • historical
    the economic theory that trade generates wealth and is stimulated by the accumulation of profitable balances, which a government should encourage by means of protectionism."

The purpose of those restrictions was to protect domestic profits. They may have been misguided in some ways, but that was the purpose. (BTW Trump & Bernie are both pushing these ideas).

To your second part, I also think that it's false and historically inaccurate. Private corporations have only improved the benefits to its labor force by either competition or government regulation. A free market system can care about its work force, but only does so when an immigrant labor is not possible nor there isn't a shared interest in keeping poor people poor, which means making poor babies.

Absent some ethics, it doesn't matter what system you use - people are going to exploit people. One of the significant advantages of capitalism is that competition is a systemic moderator of many aspects of the economy - wages, production quantity/quality, etc. Introduce "too big to fail", no-bid contracts, selective tax incentives/trade deals, etc. and you remove the moderation.
 
The purpose of those restrictions was to protect domestic profits. They may have been misguided in some ways, but that was the purpose. (BTW Trump & Bernie are both pushing these ideas).

I feel as if you are responding to things I am not addressing in this post. First what actual "education" means and now this. I said a capitalist system favors profits over anything else. You cite that a mercantilist system looks for profits as much as capitalism does, I dispute this by citing the qualifications of a mercantile economy, and those 4 things, to which you did not address and that I assume you agree on, do not place profit as the most important interest. By being protectionist, a government is not taking the most profitable products or usage of labor (a mercantile system would only use its colonies for raw materials, not purchase it from other nations, for instance) thus is not as profitable as a capitalist system in which we see the usage of cheap labor and shipping costs as being more profitable to the corporations than keeping the money in the United States. The government, whether that is led by Bernie or Trump, is inherently not a capitalist system if its engages in regulation and protectionism.

Absent some ethics, it doesn't matter what system you use - people are going to exploit people. One of the significant advantages of capitalism is that competition is a systemic moderator of many aspects of the economy - wages, production quantity/quality, etc. Introduce "too big to fail", no-bid contracts, selective tax incentives/trade deals, etc. and you remove the moderation.

And again, you begin by stating something that I am not disputing. Any system exploits its people, but a capitalist system does so in a way that encourages only the profits for the future of business. (allowing large amounts of unskilled labor into the country, rent seeking as you cited earlier and etc).

I am arguing that a capitalist system does not moderate itself when it puts its own interests in destroying that moderation. By advocating/allowing unskilled labor into the country and rent seeking not being an actual philosophy of business, corporations have no interest in appeasing the labor demands of the powerless. Since a private corporation has taken agency in society in maintaining conditions that are more beneficial to them than the general public, the system is then flawed. We are seeing this today with the quality of life in the tech businesses of SF/SJ etc. They are offering highly competitive things in order to attract the best tech people out there. But what happens when tech people are as easily attainable as a machine operator? (Probably not possible, but let's assume for this discussion) I am arguing that you won't see google offering free lunches and nap time at work and all this other crap.
 
I feel as if you are responding to things I am not addressing in this post. First what actual "education" means and now this.

I understood you to be saying that government provides educational services or the means to them and this makes a more educated/better off populace. I disputed this, even if you do not consider me to have refuted it.

I said a capitalist system favors profits over anything else. You cite that a mercantilist system looks for profits as much as capitalism does, I dispute this by citing the qualifications of a mercantile economy, and those 4 things, to which you did not address and that I assume you agree on, do not place profit as the most important interest. By being protectionist, a government is not taking the most profitable products or usage of labor (a mercantile system would only use its colonies for raw materials, not purchase it from other nations, for instance) thus is not as profitable as a capitalist system in which we see the usage of cheap labor and shipping costs as being more profitable to the corporations than keeping the money in the United States. The government, whether that is led by Bernie or Trump, is inherently not a capitalist system if its engages in regulation and protectionism.

We already engage in measures of protectionism, and of course there is regulation. So we don't have "capitalism"? This was something Ein and I spent quite a bit of time on in times past btw.

Profit is the most important interest in mercantilism, it's just considered on a national basis rather than the company conceived as a global entity. Obviously conceived thusly, potential profits are going to be restricted ceteris paribus. The sortcoming of policy based on ceteris paribus is that nothing ever is. There is some truth to what Trump and Bernie have said about the Asian economies compared to the US. However, simple protectionism isn't necessarily the answer.

And again, you begin by stating something that I am not disputing. Any system exploits its people, but a capitalist system does so in a way that encourages only the profits for the future of business. (allowing large amounts of unskilled labor into the country, rent seeking as you cited earlier and etc).

I am arguing that a capitalist system does not moderate itself when it puts its own interests in destroying that moderation. By advocating/allowing unskilled labor into the country and rent seeking not being an actual philosophy of business, corporations have no interest in appeasing the labor demands of the powerless. Since a private corporation has taken agency in society in maintaining conditions that are more beneficial to them than the general public, the system is then flawed. We are seeing this today with the quality of life in the tech businesses of SF/SJ etc. They are offering highly competitive things in order to attract the best tech people out there. But what happens when tech people are as easily attainable as a machine operator? (Probably not possible, but let's assume for this discussion) I am arguing that you won't see google offering free lunches and nap time at work and all this other crap.

The problem here is you are confusing a single business or corporation with "capitalism".
 
I understood you to be saying that government provides educational services or the means to them and this makes a more educated/better off populace. I disputed this, even if you do not consider me to have refuted it.

Direct money transfers would help people more than a panoply of "services", but neither help people grow any more financially literate or responsible.

Maybe I am misunderstanding what you mean here, but I would say a person becomes more financially responsible with more income than without, but I don't think any kind of course teaches this anyways. Nor do I think a capitalist system wants people to be financially 'responsible'

We already engage in measures of protectionism, and of course there is regulation. So we don't have "capitalism"? This was something Ein and I spent quite a bit of time on in times past btw.

Of course we don't, only Ted Cruz thinks things in absolutes like this. (jab jab potshot).

Profit is the most important interest in mercantilism, it's just considered on a national basis rather than the company conceived as a global entity.

I don't dispute either part, but I think if an economic system favors nation building as part of its plan, then profit is no longer the #1 interest.

The problem here is you are confusing a single business or corporation with "capitalism".

I would then argue that a (any?) corporation mimics the economic system in its 'home' country, wouldn't you agree?
 
Maybe I am misunderstanding what you mean here, but I would say a person becomes more financially responsible with more income than without, but I don't think any kind of course teaches this anyways. Nor do I think a capitalist system wants people to be financially 'responsible'

What would give you the idea that income has any impact on prudence? If anything, one would assume less prudence with greater income after a point. A capitalist system rewards saving and investment. Businesses want you to buy their products/services. The same aspects of capitalism that allow for new businesses are what "antagonizes" existing businesses. Businesses are not "pro-capitalism", and "business friendly" may have nothing to do with capitalism. Mercantilism and fascism was very business friendly....for certain businesses.

A perfect example was how Amazon behaved regarding taxes before versus after they reached their incredible size.


I don't dispute either part, but I think if an economic system favors nation building as part of its plan, then profit is no longer the #1 interest.

The thinking was that the nation and the businesses of the nation had a symbiotic relationship. It was necessary that businesses participate in this thinking as companies were chartered as they could show that they served the interest of [empire]. If you look at Adam Smith's seminal work, he attacked mercantilism by trying to show that the wealth of nations and businesses was advanced via free trade rather than protectionism.

I would then argue that a (any?) corporation mimics the economic system in its 'home' country, wouldn't you agree?

I don't know how you can compare the two things.
 
A capitalist system rewards saving and investment.

I disagree on the first one. Capitalism is strongly against savings and depends on any (and all) person(s) putting their money back into the economy. Investment really only favors those already in high positions of wealth, as i'm sure my retirement plan took a nice little hit this week :)

The same aspects of capitalism that allow for new businesses are what "antagonizes" existing businesses. Businesses are not "pro-capitalism"

What aspects are you referring to? If I am following you here, at first a new business venturing into a field with limited participation and not competitive is frowned upon, but quickly swallowed up by someone with more money. It seems impossible that a business in a higher echelon status can lose in a capitalist system

he attacked mercantilism by trying to show that the wealth of nations and businesses was advanced via free trade rather than protectionism.

So we both agree that capitalism is not as protectionist as a mercantile system and thus not as profit hungry :)

I don't know how you can compare the two things.

I don't see the disconnect here
 
I disagree on the first one. Capitalism is strongly against savings and depends on any (and all) person(s) putting their money back into the economy. Investment really only favors those already in high positions of wealth, as i'm sure my retirement plan took a nice little hit this week :)

You can't invest if you haven't saved. Saving as opposed to consuming every single thing produced immediately/semi-immediately (even in advance, as with credit). Now, those savings do very little stuffed in the proverbial mattress. Hence investment.


What aspects are you referring to? If I am following you here, at first a new business venturing into a field with limited participation and not competitive is frowned upon, but quickly swallowed up by someone with more money. It seems impossible that a business in a higher echelon status can lose in a capitalist system.

That's why Sears has been such an unstoppable retail force since 18-whatever. Capitalism requires competition. Obviously if you wish to make a new entry/you are an up and coming business, you like this. If you have achieved some level of success, you don't like having to constantly maintain it "the hard way". So instead of spending capital on R&D/infrastructure/marketing/etc, you buy political favor. It's cheaper and less risky. Obviously there are limits to the effectiveness depending on the country/political/technological climate, but you know what I'm talking about.

So we both agree that capitalism is not as protectionist as a mercantile system and thus not as profit hungry :)

Generation of a surplus has been the aim of human production for a long time. people will support whatever system they think will get it for them. What system that is depends on your education and your economic position. It's obviously in the interest of any particular company's bottom line at a given time to have no competition. That doesn't mean it is in [our interest].

I don't see the disconnect here

It doesn't even look like apples and oranges the two things are so categorically separate. You're not even wrong.
 
You can't invest if you haven't saved. Saving as opposed to consuming every single thing produced immediately/semi-immediately

But investment scales, and the scaling is not for the little guy.

Capitalism requires competition.

I agree with this sentiment if we qualify that competition is better for the consumer, but much rarer for the business. If there is no competition, the business does not care (I am thinking in terms of the TV/Internet conglomerates of today). But, thankfully Netflix and other streaming services are forcing these massive corporations to adapt in order to maintain their customer base. If Netflix wasn't around, these corporations would have little sentiment to expand streaming services, have movie databases, dvr etc.
 
Last edited:
But investment scales, and the scaling is not for the little guy.

Within a domain, yes.

I agree with this sentiment if we qualify that competition is better for the consumer, but much rarer for the business. If there is no competition, the business does not care (I am thinking in terms of the TV/Internet conglomerates of today). But, thankfully Netflix and other streaming services are forcing these massive corporations to adapt in order to maintain their customer base. If Netflix wasn't around, these corporations would have little sentiment to expand streaming services, have movie databases, dvr etc.

Competition is good for businesses in that it pushes them to "do better". Obviously we all would prefer as much for a little as possible. That's how we are both as producers and consumers.

Streaming services, or Amazon, or whoever demonstrate the "magic" of competition. If one cannot compete within a particular arena, one has the option to change the arena (of course, a significant reason for lack of competition in traditional media was the FTC - hello rentseeking). Ultimately competition is better for [us] as society in general and as individuals. Of course, it doesn't look like it to the proverbial buggy whip manufacturers when the automobile comes rolling down the road.

The only anti-"bootstrap" argument I've seen that I think warrants continual monitoring is the increasing obsolescence of menial human labor, even possibly approaching the skilled variety. If robots and computers can outcompete the majority of the population at whatever the pinnacle of their possible skill level is, how does the economy function? Concepts like comparative advantage that mediated differences in humans are thrown out the window. Despite arguments to the contrary, we are not currently at a point where a "basic income" makes sense or is necessary, but I will agree that there could come a point in time where something like that could be required.

I would even agree to the superiority of a basic income to the current hodgepodge of welfare programs for a variety of reasons, particularly if it accompanied the changing of the monetary system.
 
just remembered today that this happened at my high school a few years back (only a couple years after i left). some of you may have heard about it, it even did the rounds on american news networks i believe lol.
 
As a non "academic" (at least compared to some of you folks) with a Finance degree and decent level of knowledge, in my limited capacity feel nearly any major political or economic system can work if there is actual intent for it to work. Capitalism, Socialism, Communism. Democracy, Fascism, Dictatorships... All have obvious benefits, but the trouble is overcoming Corruption. This is the single limiting factor for a successfully functioning society/system, regardless the type. Legitimately put foot to ass on corrupt politicians passing bogus laws, exceptions for their donors, etc and capitalism will work fine. This extends not just to the obvious types of Corruption, but the intellectual dishonesty of Republicans pushing to help the middle/upper class (while only helping the 1% & Corporations) or the Democrats agenda of keeping the poor voter poor and angry as to maintain their voter base. This is the only real, true problem. All these minor details we argue over don't matter so long as this is such a pervasive problem.

I've all but quit following the markets/politics because of this very deep seated level of intellectual dishonesty, corruption, and constant barrage of lies from governments/media.
 
You are too reliant on acronyms these days mannnnn

p.s. i'm sure you'll be excited to hear I am having a discussion on militarism vs. fascism in WW2 tomorrow :p
 
You are too reliant on acronyms these days mannnnn

p.s. i'm sure you'll be excited to hear I am having a discussion on militarism vs. fascism in WW2 tomorrow :p

I'm relapsing into the military mindset, gotta get ready to work with that population. The Army has just as many acronyms as the Marines anyway so I don't know wut u talkin bout. :p