Ireland Government intend to appeal EU/Apples Tax Ruling

[HalGameGuru]

5 hours ago, laminutederire said:

-snip-

The problem being those aren't free, they are paid for coercively through taxation. Removing the competitive and rewarding aspects of market forces is what allows the costs, which have to be paid whether directly by the students or indirectly by taxation, to rise and often become the teat for parasitic bureaucracy and waste. A profit incentive also fosters better results and more specialization. These kinds of things are more noticeable in primary schooling where the government has had a longer track record to ruin. In the US school systems that have more and more money funneled into them typically do worse and worse, and in places like India the private schools are cheaper and more effective than the government provided ones. Even the poorest living in the slums of calcutta and mumbai have access to these private schools which are affordable and give their kids a genuine step up.

 

In this video Tom Woods goes over a few things, but one of the big ones is the difference in bureaucracy and waste between a state school system and a private one.

Spoiler

 

 

I have a blanket issue with socialised services. But, in a case by case situation there may be certain instances where the results can be seen as more positive than negative. But, its a hard pill for me to swallow when in much/some? of Europe home schooling and competitive market options are outright illegal. 

 

 

EDIT: Once again, if you see government intervention as capitalistic I think you may have an inaccurate definition of capitalism.

[laminutederire]

5 hours ago, HalGameGuru said:

The problem being those aren't free, they are paid for coercively through taxation. Removing the competitive and rewarding aspects of market forces is what allows the costs, which have to be paid whether directly by the students or indirectly by taxation, to rise and often become the teat for parasitic bureaucracy and waste. A profit incentive also fosters better results and more specialization. These kinds of things are more noticeable in primary schooling where the government has had a longer track record to ruin. In the US school systems that have more and more money funneled into them typically do worse and worse, and in places like India the private schools are cheaper and more effective than the government provided ones. Even the poorest living in the slums of calcutta and mumbai have access to these private schools which are affordable and give their kids a genuine step up.

 

In this video Tom Woods goes over a few things, but one of the big ones is the difference in bureaucracy and waste between a state school system and a private one.

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

I have a blanket issue with socialised services. But, in a case by case situation there may be certain instances where the results can be seen as more positive than negative. But, its a hard pill for me to swallow when in much/some? of Europe home schooling and competitive market options are outright illegal. 

 

 

EDIT: Once again, if you see government intervention as capitalistic I think you may have an inaccurate definition of capitalism.

I see government intervention  necessary for a system to work. To me it's all about the moral values governments can have that companies just can't. In economics, being the better doesn't make you rich, you have to either cater for businesses, or you have to downright fuck your customers to be rich.

Furthermore in a social oriented country, money is tight because it has to account for a lot of things, so the optimizations you describe become present anyway. Only difference is that errors are allowed and changes for something more expensive are allowed as well if it has significant benefits educational wise.

I think the debate is moot because we don't share a tiny bit of vision for our world. I despise yours based on anti social measures and everything because money isn't everything. It is just a mean for something, but in an ideal society, money should be pointless. Things like happiness or personnal growth are things we reach for on Europe, except Germany and the UK, so good riddance of them by the way.

Proof that something like that works is literally every engineering school of a certain level in France. Where I study for instance, more than half of the money needed is made by researchers. They dedicate their lives so that we can have the chance of working on what we love,  just like them. They do it because they have values in sharing. That's something that fuels them everyday for decades after decades, and it replaces the search of money of private labs. That's another incentive men can have, which is less natural because you gave to get away from the egoistic animal like state, and evolve to an altruistic social man.

It was a part of the project that led to the EU, which is thankfully still present when we want to punish greed.

[Tomsen]

5 hours ago, HalGameGuru said:

The problem being those aren't free, they are paid for coercively through taxation. Removing the competitive and rewarding aspects of market forces is what allows the costs, which have to be paid whether directly by the students or indirectly by taxation, to rise and often become the teat for parasitic bureaucracy and waste. A profit incentive also fosters better results and more specialization. These kinds of things are more noticeable in primary schooling where the government has had a longer track record to ruin. In the US school systems that have more and more money funneled into them typically do worse and worse, and in places like India the private schools are cheaper and more effective than the government provided ones. Even the poorest living in the slums of calcutta and mumbai have access to these private schools which are affordable and give their kids a genuine step up.

 

In this video Tom Woods goes over a few things, but one of the big ones is the difference in bureaucracy and waste between a state school system and a private one.

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

I have a blanket issue with socialised services. But, in a case by case situation there may be certain instances where the results can be seen as more positive than negative. But, its a hard pill for me to swallow when in much/some? of Europe home schooling and competitive market options are outright illegal. 

 

 

EDIT: Once again, if you see government intervention as capitalistic I think you may have an inaccurate definition of capitalism.

Of course it isn't free, there will always be bills to pay. It is in how you pay it. Most people can go by paying little more in tax, than to take a loan out to get an education. Have you americans learned nothing about your constant complaining in how expensive your education system is for your educatees. Putting you in debts for decades.

A profit incentive doesn't necessarily really foster better results [ it depends on the institution ], you can have profit incentive schools that will put lot of pupils with a single teacher, because of profit. Simply removing the free education option, doesn't make all education standard go up, a lot of low-standard private school will then pop up and fill the void.

 

India? You are scavenging the earth to find a suitable example? India is still having designated shitting streets, so lets not get to much up in detail with their government economic efficiencies.

 

Home  schooling should also remain outright illegal for a number of reasons. Competitive market options (private schools?) should very much be legal in most of Europe afai.

[asim1999]

When Britain leaves the EU they don't don't have to worry about the tax ruling 

[laminutederire]

32 minutes ago, asim1999 said:

When Britain leaves the EU they don't don't have to worry about the tax ruling 

Ireland will remain in the EU though.

[Sakkura]

12 minutes ago, laminutederire said:

Ireland will remain in the EU though.

Besides, it's not like this ruling hurts the UK. The other way around, if anything.

[HalGameGuru]

13 hours ago, laminutederire said:

-snip-

That's not capitalism. No capitalist concern can get away with screwing its customers for long. Without the state who protects corporate actors or enforces protective edicts? The market does not reward malfeasance, states and their intervened markets do. America used to be a paragon of private property, then the government decided allowing businesses to cut corners was worth it if it meant beating the europeans. That is the start of all the "screwing the people" that gets bandied about. If I can find the video on it I will share it... here:

Spoiler

 

 

There is still a drive for money even in those labs, there are some videos on that as well. Government money skews research as much as any. Medical research in America is a farce, largely because of the interplay between the state and big pharma players. Almost any industry out there private versus public isn't the issue, its whoever is pushing the funding puts into question the research. It all comes back to money doesn't it? Shouldn't the money be derived in a morally consistent manner?

 

12 hours ago, Tomsen said:

-snip-

And those problems are due to the government intervening skewing the demand, and money supply. Lots of students to few teachers is not from a market's profit incentive, that happens when the students don't have a choice, when the established players are protected, regulations keep newcomers out, and competition for students and available credit is skewed by a respecter of no economic realities.

 

Profit incentive alone means nothing, the capitalist model has to exist with it (not corporatist, not cronyist, actual capitalism. respect for property rights, voluntary and consensual interaction). Protections for bad actors and barriers to entry and competition are not capitalist mechanisms. When those exist a profit motive, which exists whether or not property rights or voluntary interactions are sacrosanct, no longer has a moral compass. The malicious can be protected from the wages of their sins. 

 

Not an argument, India is going to be a MAJOR player largely because of the huge upswing in primary education they are seeing with these new private schools. Do not discount them because they are having to work from a handicap. They are doing amazing things.

 

Home schooling should be legal and freely accessible anywhere and everywhere. To argue otherwise is to presumptively discount a huge swath of innate human rights and choice. I don't know which is more egregious, the affront to the rights of the parents or those of the children... actually no, the children, definitely. 

 

 

EDIT: Does it hurt your feelings that India is seeing far more profit and advancement by letting the market freely provide education than the vaunted top down state "solutions"?

 

EDIT2:

Spoiler

 

 

EDIT3: https://mises.org/library/science-technology-and-government-0

[patrickjp93]

15 hours ago, Tomsen said:

Of course it isn't free, there will always be bills to pay. It is in how you pay it. Most people can go by paying little more in tax, than to take a loan out to get an education. Have you americans learned nothing about your constant complaining in how expensive your education system is for your educatees. Putting you in debts for decades.

A profit incentive doesn't necessarily really foster better results [ it depends on the institution ], you can have profit incentive schools that will put lot of pupils with a single teacher, because of profit. Simply removing the free education option, doesn't make all education standard go up, a lot of low-standard private school will then pop up and fill the void.

 

India? You are scavenging the earth to find a suitable example? India is still having designated shitting streets, so lets not get to much up in detail with their government economic efficiencies.

 

Home  schooling should also remain outright illegal for a number of reasons. Competitive market options (private schools?) should very much be legal in most of Europe afai.

Home schooling should not be illegal at all. There should be a mechanism to check in on the quality without a doubt, but we home school all our lives when we go to work and research solutions. I can home school any kid in math, grammar, rhetoric, music, biology, chemistry, physics, U.S. history, European History, and ancient world history up to the top high school level; and in physics, math, and computer science I could easily home school someone up to the same level of rigor as you'd find in some of the best state institutions in the U.S.. I may not be able to teach abstract algebra or partial differential equations, or a number of courses one would need to get a full degree in physics or mathematics; but I can get anyone through Multivariable Calculus, Discrete Mathematics, and standard Differential Equations.

 

Are you seriously saying I shouldn't be able to save money and home school my future kids up to a certain level as long as I ensure they also have their social needs met all because of the screw ups of a very few?

[laminutederire]

9 hours ago, HalGameGuru said:

 

Money is a huge barrier to enter a lot of things including education in the US, but it's a barrier because you guys don't want "the bad states"  to intervene anywhere.

Are you seriously trying to convince me that greed is caused by government intervention? That's absurd, they don't get anything from it. Company screwing over people has always been because they're greedy and nothing more.

And I agree that screwing over customers isn't sustainable, but so is the whole system. Right now it is just taking too much time for customers to realize they're being fooled. Apple customers are a good example of that.

Maybe in the US it is all about money, but the fact is that it isn't about money everywhere in the world. If I tell you that the researchers work only for their pleasure and to allow us to afford our education because they went to give back to the youth, it's because they all told me so. It's a choice they made, and frankly they seem a lot happier than the money driven researchers from some other schools. But I really have trouble making you understand that life can happen without the pressure of money, and that capitalism isn't the best way of doing things. It's the best way to make profits, but that's about it.

By the way you do understand that the mechanism of letting newcomers out is basically what expensive universities is all about ? That's what European are trying to tell you. If people can't afford it they can't go there, and they can't profit from the social ladder which education is supposed to provide.

(Don't want to be rude, but I think the US problem is that you guys use philosophical basis on freedom etc, but you distorted it so badly it's becoming an insult for the original thinkers. It's a bit like Daesh is doing with Islam to be honest. Distorting old texts to make them say whatever you want them to. That's blatant when you guys talk about human rights, when obviously those aren't human rights )

[patrickjp93]

1 hour ago, laminutederire said:

Money is a huge barrier to enter a lot of things including education in the US, but it's a barrier because you guys don't want "the bad states"  to intervene anywhere.

Are you seriously trying to convince me that greed is caused by government intervention? That's absurd, they don't get anything from it. Company screwing over people has always been because they're greedy and nothing more.

And I agree that screwing over customers isn't sustainable, but so is the whole system. Right now it is just taking too much time for customers to realize they're being fooled. Apple customers are a good example of that.

Maybe in the US it is all about money, but the fact is that it isn't about money everywhere in the world. If I tell you that the researchers work only for their pleasure and to allow us to afford our education because they went to give back to the youth, it's because they all told me so. It's a choice they made, and frankly they seem a lot happier than the money driven researchers from some other schools. But I really have trouble making you understand that life can happen without the pressure of money, and that capitalism isn't the best way of doing things. It's the best way to make profits, but that's about it.

By the way you do understand that the mechanism of letting newcomers out is basically what expensive universities is all about ? That's what European are trying to tell you. If people can't afford it they can't go there, and they can't profit from the social ladder which education is supposed to provide.

(Don't want to be rude, but I think the US problem is that you guys use philosophical basis on freedom etc, but you distorted it so badly it's becoming an insult for the original thinkers. It's a bit like Daesh is doing with Islam to be honest. Distorting old texts to make them say whatever you want them to. That's blatant when you guys talk about human rights, when obviously those aren't human rights )

Greed does not create bad education, and government intervention does not create good education at an efficient price. Someone greedy who sees an opportunity in selling education cheaper than the competition also has to provide value in order to make a sale. The government gets a lot from it in terms of campaign financing and more power.

 

Companies can only screw you over if YOU make a bad decision.

 

People work for value, not money. What you are saying is nothing new. That doesn't change the fact money is a necessity to survive with any sort of security.

 

Capitalism is the best way of doing things in most situations if not all.

[laminutederire]

9 minutes ago, patrickjp93 said:

 

I beg to differ. I don't know one private school which provides a better education than good public schools.

For instance, one of the best schools in the world has a negative entry fee. People there are so amazingly smart, but the fact they are in a context where greed doesn't exist because the only thing that matters to them is science, that and only that, which makes them the world elite in mathematics for instance. It may not be efficient, but it produces uniquely bright minds who change the world, so it's worth it because it is for a common good that money is thrown. At one point, you have to think about something greater than money.

In higher education at least, government don't have much say except in how much money schools have. Politicians don't understand things enough to make the programs, so the education part isn't influenced by the government, isn't it what matters?

Yes but they're happy to help you all they can so that you make a bad decision. How is that okay from a moral standpoint?

 

Hmm people work for money because they want to survive and live comfortably enough. Those people are the mass. Only a few care about any other sort of value than money. That's an issue of morality, of education and of system.

When you say capitalism is the best way, what do you compare it to exactly?

[HalGameGuru]

7 hours ago, laminutederire said:

-snip-

Who are they selling their talent to that allows them to make that system work? Whose money is supporting that institution? Because I can tell you its not charity or other moral means of deriving funding. I would wager the majority of their institutions' income is from government. They are merely one more government contractor. All that money they have with which to make such "philanthropic" use of has come via coercion.

 

We compare capitalism to any and every system, and all systems fall short of moral and philosophical consistency. The rights of the individual, and voluntary and consensual interactions, are the foundations of capitalism. Capitalism is the understanding that the individual is the only rights holder, and any aggression against those rights is forbidden. Capitalism promotes negotiation, conscientious provision, and voluntary interaction; not coercion, not artificial imposition of barriers or regulations, nor commerce at the tip of the spear. 

 

"money" isn't the barrier, regulation and edicts are. Money is all over the place, people are willing to invest in education the same as they are willing to invest in restaurants or law offices.

 

Companies screwing people over is only protected via the state. Bad actors are protected from the wages of their malfeasance, the injured are prevented from receiving restitution, new and smaller players are kept from competing, and the individual's rights are held as secondary. Because the government that creates the imaginary person of corporations decides all this.

 

If you do not understand that liberty, innate human rights, exist and apply everywhere I think it is you who does not get it.

 

EDIT: I would ask if you watched the videos or read the papers, but I think the answer is no as you kept to your previous tact rather than shift to the information they provided.

[laminutederire]

1 hour ago, HalGameGuru said:

Capitalism is the understanding that the individual is the only rights holder

 

EDIT: I would ask if you watched the videos or read the papers, but I think the answer is no as you kept to your previous tact rather than shift to the information they provided.

In Europe labs fund the schools, in the US it's the other way around. That's why you're saying this.

For any student, basically half of the money comes from government funding and the other half comes from labs. They make money off patent and contracts from the industry.

For instance, in my school a big chunk of money come from the Europe space program, and Airbus, and some parents make people like the NASA and Boeing pay a licence. It's like a regular company, but the benefits are used to educate people and not going in the pocket of the CEO.

 

By the way why do UK-US citizen always think taxes are that bad? It's a phenomenon which just balance a bit wealth between citizens.

 

You do know corporations have rights like persons and those have emerged thanks to capitalism and not regulating them always lead to greed or crisis, since the people running those don't have the sense of responsibility which has been legally transferred to the corporation? I see you see those as government invention, but remains that the corporate model has been made to cater for the need of capitalistic minds.

 

Not anyone can invest that's the thing. For the hundredth time, I'll have to point our to you guys that people who would deserved to go to any US university could be forced to study elsewhere because it's too expensive and that they can't make that investment even if they wanted to. That is a barrier even if you don't want to admit it.

 

Liberty apply to all men, but liberty isn't free of limitations. And guns rights in the US seem to be appearing from a thought of freedom as unlimited, while it is.

 

No I haven't yet, haven't got the time really,  I'll answer to those probably tomorrow or Monday.  Sorry.

[Tomsen]

On 9/10/2016 at 0:17 AM, HalGameGuru said:

And those problems are due to the government intervening skewing the demand, and money supply. Lots of students to few teachers is not from a market's profit incentive, that happens when the students don't have a choice, when the established players are protected, regulations keep newcomers out, and competition for students and available credit is skewed by a respecter of no economic realities.

 

Profit incentive alone means nothing, the capitalist model has to exist with it (not corporatist, not cronyist, actual capitalism. respect for property rights, voluntary and consensual interaction). Protections for bad actors and barriers to entry and competition are not capitalist mechanisms. When those exist a profit motive, which exists whether or not property rights or voluntary interactions are sacrosanct, no longer has a moral compass. The malicious can be protected from the wages of their sins. 

 

Not an argument, India is going to be a MAJOR player largely because of the huge upswing in primary education they are seeing with these new private schools. Do not discount them because they are having to work from a handicap. They are doing amazing things.

 

Home schooling should be legal and freely accessible anywhere and everywhere. To argue otherwise is to presumptively discount a huge swath of innate human rights and choice. I don't know which is more egregious, the affront to the rights of the parents or those of the children... actually no, the children, definitely. 

 

 

EDIT: Does it hurt your feelings that India is seeing far more profit and advancement by letting the market freely provide education than the vaunted top down state "solutions"?

 

EDIT2:

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

 

How is the government responsible for it? You still don't get it, even with a privatized educational system, the problem will still be there. You forget a lot of people won't actually have many opportunities taking their economic class, regional area or what be it into account. Many people wont see the benefit of choice, and in case, the choice might not actually be any better.

 

The capitalist model noone actually can draw out. Actual capitalism is very much like saying actual socialism. Very easy to say but hard to describe to depth of actual implementations that doesn't lead out obvious flaws.

 

I don't think you got my point. Sure, comparing to India, which still lacks behind in the government social spending in education, makes the point of private schools very good. My point isn't that there is one solution to cover all, because it isn't. (I believe there should be both a option for private and public schools). My point was obviously referred to government with well establish education spending. 

 

I believe there should be certain requirements in a kids education, I believe teachers needs to be certified in order to teach. Need to make sure that the kid undergoes the certain topics required under the government educational standard. Make sure the kids actually understand the theory behind it and not simply memorizing. That is of course if the public educational system is good enough. But I think that is reasonable to secure the education of kids.

 

Does it hurt my feelings? Um, no. I don't really have an emotional say in this. Simply pointing out the flaw in picking india as stated above.

[Tomsen]

19 hours ago, patrickjp93 said:

Home schooling should not be illegal at all. There should be a mechanism to check in on the quality without a doubt, but we home school all our lives when we go to work and research solutions. I can home school any kid in math, grammar, rhetoric, music, biology, chemistry, physics, U.S. history, European History, and ancient world history up to the top high school level; and in physics, math, and computer science I could easily home school someone up to the same level of rigor as you'd find in some of the best state institutions in the U.S.. I may not be able to teach abstract algebra or partial differential equations, or a number of courses one would need to get a full degree in physics or mathematics; but I can get anyone through Multivariable Calculus, Discrete Mathematics, and standard Differential Equations.

 

Are you seriously saying I shouldn't be able to save money and home school my future kids up to a certain level as long as I ensure they also have their social needs met all because of the screw ups of a very few?

There should be, but is there any that would actually work? I'm not saying you can be responsible for teaching your kids a-b-c, but how can a society validate all parents previous education AND their memories of said education.

Many parents will try to convince others of what you are saying. I will doubt every single one of them, and you too. Lets not play games here, all right.

 

What money are saved if school is free? The screw ups are NOT from the few, but rather the VERY many. 

[patrickjp93]

12 hours ago, laminutederire said:

I beg to differ. I don't know one private school which provides a better education than good public schools.

For instance, one of the best schools in the world has a negative entry fee. People there are so amazingly smart, but the fact they are in a context where greed doesn't exist because the only thing that matters to them is science, that and only that, which makes them the world elite in mathematics for instance. It may not be efficient, but it produces uniquely bright minds who change the world, so it's worth it because it is for a common good that money is thrown. At one point, you have to think about something greater than money.

In higher education at least, government don't have much say except in how much money schools have. Politicians don't understand things enough to make the programs, so the education part isn't influenced by the government, isn't it what matters?

Yes but they're happy to help you all they can so that you make a bad decision. How is that okay from a moral standpoint?

 

Hmm people work for money because they want to survive and live comfortably enough. Those people are the mass. Only a few care about any other sort of value than money. That's an issue of morality, of education and of system.

When you say capitalism is the best way, what do you compare it to exactly?

The Ivy League schools, MIT, Stevens Institute, Carnegie Melon, Stanford...

 

And the name of this mythical school?

 

The only other systems in play are Mercantilism, Socialism, and Communism. From an economics standpoint, Capitalism is the most sustainable and most pro-growth.

12 minutes ago, Tomsen said:

There should be, but is there any that would actually work? I'm not saying you can be responsible for teaching your kids a-b-c, but how can a society validate all parents previous education AND their memories of said education.

Many parents will try to convince others of what you are saying. I will doubt every single one of them, and you too. Lets not play games here, all right.

 

What money are saved if school is free? The screw ups are NOT from the few, but rather the VERY many. 

That's why standardized tests exist, though they need to be scaled back to just 8th grade and senior year of high school. And let the Ivy League write the tests and get government-funded businesses that make money on failure out of it altogether.

 

"Free" even though you pay for it in taxes and end up with a less efficient system because there's no incentive to bring costs down or deliver more quality at the same price.

[Tomsen]

2 minutes ago, patrickjp93 said:

That's why standardized tests exist, though they need to be scaled back to just 8th grade and senior year of high school. And let the Ivy League write the tests and get government-funded businesses that make money on failure out of it altogether.

 

"Free" even though you pay for it in taxes and end up with a less efficient system because there's no incentive to bring costs down or deliver more quality at the same price.

Those alone often is meaningless, you can memorize it, without actually understanding it. Hence why in many education systems a student performance is a variance of grades and activity in classroom. 

 

How many times do we have to go over this? There is a BIG difference between paying a little more in tax and having to take a huge loan which you will pay for decades to come. if the system is in place, education is essentially free.

Why is there no incentive to bring cost down? Most people seem interested in bringing taxes down, which means schools needs to improve their efficiency to keep quality up (and government should very well keep the quality up).

[laminutederire]

33 minutes ago, patrickjp93 said:

 

Ivy league schools aren't exactly better than other schools which are paid by governments in Europe. They are roughly the same level of excellence than excellence university in Europe.

I'm referring to a real school don't worry.

It's called the ENS, it's in Paris (If you want details ). To sum up, you don't have a school producing as many fields medal as the US does with less than a hundred of students in mathematics degree each year I'd you aren't a good school.

 

So? That means we haven't taken the time to find a better one.

 

About the incentive to have a quality education... what about glory? Love of the field? Love of knowledge transmission?

Looking back at my studies so far, the best professors always have been the one thinking the less about money. They were more dedicated, they did things outside the class they were paid to do in order to bring their students to the best level they could. Since you think with costs in mind, the less money is an incentive, the more teacher will do things freely. Which is saving money.

You can have quality for little money when the mindset of people is a passionate one.

[Nineshadow]

4 hours ago, laminutederire said:

Not anyone can invest that's the thing. For the hundredth time, I'll have to point our to you guys that people who would deserved to go to any US university could be forced to study elsewhere because it's too expensive and that they can't make that investment even if they wanted to. That is a barrier even if you don't want to admit it.

Yeah, it's expensive as hell. I only personally know 1 guy who just got into Columbia Uni this year, but that's because he got a $70k/year scholarship (he also got one from Harvard, but he chose Columbia because it's better in his domain of study), plus another 10k because he was appointed a Science Research Fellow. Of course, he got in that position because he's very good; just this year he won a gold medal and a silver one in the International Olympiads of Earth Science and Geography. He's been like that, well...every year of high school tbh. Last year he got a gold medal at the Physics one iirc, and I'm just going to stop there since it's a pretty long list.

 

Anyway, my cousin also got admitted to Columbia this year, but she just couldn't afford it without a substantial scholarship, so she instead went to Birmingham University.

[patrickjp93]

44 minutes ago, Tomsen said:

Those alone often is meaningless, you can memorize it, without actually understanding it. Hence why in many education systems a student performance is a variance of grades and activity in classroom. 

 

How many times do we have to go over this? There is a BIG difference between paying a little more in tax and having to take a huge loan which you will pay for decades to come. if the system is in place, education is essentially free.

Why is there no incentive to bring cost down? Most people seem interested in bringing taxes down, which means schools needs to improve their efficiency to keep quality up (and government should very well keep the quality up).

That's a matter of execution. You can't memorize solutions to problems that require synthesis of techniques.

 

No, there really is none, and I shouldn't have to subsidize it proportionally more just because I make more because of my good decisions in school and career.

 

You're deluded if you think that. Money that flows from the government is essentially limitless. If plays into the mindset of public institutions the world over from public transportation to services and to publicly funded education.

24 minutes ago, laminutederire said:

Ivy league schools aren't exactly better than other schools which are paid by governments in Europe. They are roughly the same level of excellence than excellence university in Europe.

I'm referring to a real school don't worry.

It's called the ENS, it's in Paris (If you want details ). To sum up, you don't have a school producing as many fields medal as the US does with less than a hundred of students in mathematics degree each year I'd you aren't a good school.

 

So? That means we haven't taken the time to find a better one.

 

About the incentive to have a quality education... what about glory? Love of the field? Love of knowledge transmission?

Looking back at my studies so far, the best professors always have been the one thinking the less about money. They were more dedicated, they did things outside the class they were paid to do in order to bring their students to the best level they could. Since you think with costs in mind, the less money is an incentive, the more teacher will do things freely. Which is saving money.

You can have quality for little money when the mindset of people is a passionate one.

Not according to real world success. The rankings which arrogantly put Cambridge on the same level as Harvard and Princeton don't take into account how successful students are in their careers.

 

The ENS is no better than NYU. I spent a semester there as a foreign exchange and was not impressed in the slightest. G

26 minutes ago, Nineshadow said:

Yeah, it's expensive as hell. I only personally know 1 guy who just got into Columbia Uni this year, but that's because he got a $70k/year scholarship (he also got one from Harvard, but he chose Columbia because it's better in his domain of study), plus another 10k because he was appointed a Science Research Fellow. Of course, he got in that position because he's very good; just this year he won a gold medal and a silver one in the International Olympiads of Earth Science and Geography. He's been like that, well...every year of high school tbh. Last year he got a gold medal at the Physics one iirc, and I'm just going to stop there since it's a pretty long list.

 

Anyway, my cousin also got admitted to Columbia this year, but she just couldn't afford it without a substantial scholarship, so she instead went to Birmingham University.

et your head out of the asses of your European elite masters.

 

No, it means it is the best system, and we should use it until someone proves there's a better way, though they can't do that because deadweight loss incurred by government regulation and spending proves it can't be done.

 

People pursuing fields for superficial reasons often get burnt. We see this in the liberal arts and fine arts students the world over. If you don't have the talent to be the top 2% that can actually get self-sustaining jobs, you should find another path to support yourself and pursue your passions in a more reasonable way. As for the professors, Miami is #3 in the world for professors' dedication to students, tied often with Dartmouth, Princeton, and schools of their caliber.

 

You still have to incentivize people to teach. And the truth is most people yeah because they couldn't cut it in industry. Those who teach out of passion are incredible, but they are an incredible minority the world over.

 

26 minutes ago, Nineshadow said:

Yeah, it's expensive as hell. I only personally know 1 guy who just got into Columbia Uni this year, but that's because he got a $70k/year scholarship (he also got one from Harvard, but he chose Columbia because it's better in his domain of study), plus another 10k because he was appointed a Science Research Fellow. Of course, he got in that position because he's very good; just this year he won a gold medal and a silver one in the International Olympiads of Earth Science and Geography. He's been like that, well...every year of high school tbh. Last year he got a gold medal at the Physics one iirc, and I'm just going to stop there since it's a pretty long list.

 

Anyway, my cousin also got admitted to Columbia this year, but she just couldn't afford it without a substantial scholarship, so she instead went to Birmingham University.

And in her case I'd advise kicking ass at Birmingham and trying to transfer later. It's not like you're stuck when you get to any institution.

[Tomsen]

3 minutes ago, patrickjp93 said:

That's a matter of execution. You can't memorize solutions to problems that require synthesis of techniques.

 

No, there really is none, and I shouldn't have to subsidize it proportionally more just because I make more because of my good decisions in school and career.

 

You're deluded if you think that. Money that flows from the government is essentially limitless. If plays into the mindset of public institutions the world over from public transportation to services and to publicly funded education.

Yeah, execution you would have no control over. No, but you can greatly misunderstand them.

 

Now you are just plain foolish. One is paying for the education of one own, where the other is paying into a social education system for accessible to everyone. So you believe taxes shouldn't be proportional to ones income? That it should be a fixed amount for everyone? Or is it only for taxes going into social educational system?

 

You are sadly the one being deluded. Money flow from government is NOT limitless, and changes are often put in place in the money flow to try adjust to the budget.

Eh what?

[laminutederire]

8 minutes ago, patrickjp93 said:

 

What ENS were you in? There are three of them, one is average, one is good and one is great. The one I'm talking about has a significant amount of fields medals and Nobel prizes which beg to differ on your statement. You don't have an average university with that much success after it.

 

Well the Ens produces a lot of these teachers, because they want to cater a love for what they're doing. That's their incentive.

 

Have you really done any science degree to say that?

It isn't because we don't know it that it doesn't exist, as it proves literally everything in science...

You're arguing governments are bad in capitalism, which is true, but you don't see that leaving the frame of capitalism, governments can have a role and can do something. You need to accept that you can imagine something else than the current system we live in.

 

#3 says who and how?

I can make up my rankings where it is dead last, doesn't make it true.

From my standpoint, rankings are mostly bullshit, I'm leaving a school badly ranked #150-200 if I remember right for the #14 school, there isn't much difference. Rankings can't account well for diversity of formation, and some schools get penalized because of that. Or they look at statistics which purpose is only to brag and says nothing about the quality of the education provided.

But I don't teach you anything on that point.

[patrickjp93]

17 minutes ago, laminutederire said:

What ENS were you in? There are three of them, one is average, one is good and one is great. The one I'm talking about has a significant amount of fields medals and Nobel prizes which beg to differ on your statement. You don't have an average university with that much success after it.

 

Well the Ens produces a lot of these teachers, because they want to cater a love for what they're doing. That's their incentive.

 

Have you really done any science degree to say that?

It isn't because we don't know it that it doesn't exist, as it proves literally everything in science...

You're arguing governments are bad in capitalism, which is true, but you don't see that leaving the frame of capitalism, governments can have a role and can do something. You need to accept that you can imagine something else than the current system we live in.

 

#3 says who and how?

I can make up my rankings where it is dead last, doesn't make it true.

From my standpoint, rankings are mostly bullshit, I'm leaving a school badly ranked #150-200 if I remember right for the #14 school, there isn't much difference. Rankings can't account well for diversity of formation, and some schools get penalized because of that. Or they look at statistics which purpose is only to brag and says nothing about the quality of the education provided.

But I don't teach you anything on that point.

Nobel prizes and field metals are a matter of opinion decided by a bunch of Austrians in a Swiss office. Despite the fact the U.S. is leading the world in medicine, solar tech, semiconductors, and more, it doesn't win too many awards these days. It's become a political tool more than a real award. Also, it was in Paris. The faculty didn't impress me and only one student did.

 

Yes!

 

Sorry but we know for a fact. It all boils down to deadweight loss. Capitalism REQUIRES efficiency for companies and people to succeed, and thus capital moves the fastest and it goes to the people the MARKET says deserve it for providing services desired at a competitive quality and price. This, innovation is the fastest under capitalism. This holds true across every single industry. There is no system which is more sustainable than the one which promotes competition the best. Rich people always want to get richer, and as soon as an opportunity appears which can expand that wealth, they jump on it. Green energy would happen faster if not for socialistic protections on big industries like oil.

 

I see it in European socialism and it's destroying every economy there! Even Germany is going more towards capitalism now, and it's the only economic powerhouse left in Europe. Russia is on the verge of collapse too and will get dragged down by the oncoming Chinese depression. The proof is all around you.

 

I can imagine it, and it's always worse. Get rid of regulation and government and industries self-regulate by competition. That's how Standard Oil became both the cheapest and biggest oil producer. It became a monopoly because of business and product quality. The system which allows that to happen is the most sustainable. Prove otherwise! All the regulation since then has just stifled growth and opportunity and installed protection. There is no system under which government intervention can cause a net positive outcome.

 

U.S. News and World Report.

 

Also, please include the quotes so I don't have to go scrolling so much to figure out what you're replying to.

 

25 minutes ago, Tomsen said:

Yeah, execution you would have no control over. No, but you can greatly misunderstand them.

 

Now you are just plain foolish. One is paying for the education of one own, where the other is paying into a social education system for accessible to everyone. So you believe taxes shouldn't be proportional to ones income? That it should be a fixed amount for everyone? Or is it only for taxes going into social educational system?

 

You are sadly the one being deluded. Money flow from government is NOT limitless, and changes are often put in place in the money flow to try adjust to the budget.

Eh what?

You have all the control over it, or I should say competition would allow that, but that's not a system we have anymore because of government intervention. These top institutions do not ask questions you can cheat at when it comes to mathematics and engineering. Sure, you can write down the facts for bio, chem, history, and law exams, but for most things you can't cheat if you ask the right questions.

 

I believe in a flat tax rate, not a graduated one. Everyone should have skin in the game, and everyone should benefit from tax breaks just as everyone should suffer from tax hikes. It destroys this entitlement culture which has ruined much of what made the U.S. great. How those taxes get used is up to the entire country to decide, but socializing education is not going to fix the core problem that these huge institutions are antiquated and have outlived heir usefulness in the face of the Information Age.

 

I didn't say it was limitless. I said that's the mentality of public sector workers, and it is. I've witnessed it firsthand. Money has to be used up or it's lost is the mentality, and cost justification is pointless to the public sector. The U.S. taxpayers will foot the bill, and being the wealthiest country in the world with the world reserve currency, money is limitless in the U.S. in their minds.

[laminutederire]

28 minutes ago, patrickjp93 said:

Nobel prizes and field metals are a matter of opinion decided by a bunch of Austrians in a Swiss office. Despite the fact the U.S. is leading the world in medicine, solar tech, semiconductors, and more, it doesn't win too many awards these days. It's become a political tool more than a real award. Also, it was in Paris. The faculty didn't impress me and only one student did.

 

Yes!

 

Sorry but we know for a fact. It all boils down to deadweight loss. Capitalism REQUIRES efficiency for companies and people to succeed, and thus capital moves the fastest and it goes to the people the MARKET says deserve it for providing services desired at a competitive quality and price. This, innovation is the fastest under capitalism. This holds true across every single industry. There is no system which is more sustainable than the one which promotes competition the best. Rich people always want to get richer, and as soon as an opportunity appears which can expand that wealth, they jump on it. Green energy would happen faster if not for socialistic protections on big industries like oil.

 

I see it in European socialism and it's destroying every economy there! Even Germany is going more towards capitalism now, and it's the only economic powerhouse left in Europe. Russia is on the verge of collapse too and will get dragged down by the oncoming Chinese depression. The proof is all around you.

 

I can imagine it, and it's always worse. Get rid of regulation and government and industries self-regulate by competition. That's how Standard Oil became both the cheapest and biggest oil producer. It became a monopoly because of business and product quality. The system which allows that to happen is the most sustainable. Prove otherwise! All the regulation since then has just stifled growth and opportunity and installed protection. There is no system under which government intervention can cause a net positive outcome.

 

U.S. News and World Report.

 

Also, please include the quotes so I don't have to go scrolling so much to figure out what you're replying to.

 

You have all the control over it, or I should say competition would allow that, but that's not a system we have anymore because of government intervention. These top institutions do not ask questions you can cheat at when it comes to mathematics and engineering. Sure, you can write down the facts for bio, chem, history, and law exams, but for most things you can't cheat if you ask the right questions.

 

I believe in a flat tax rate, not a graduated one. Everyone should have skin in the game, and everyone should benefit from tax breaks just as everyone should suffer from tax hikes. It destroys this entitlement culture which has ruined much of what made the U.S. great. How those taxes get used is up to the entire country to decide, but socializing education is not going to fix the core problem that these huge institutions are antiquated and have outlived heir usefulness in the face of the Information Age.

 

I didn't say it was limitless. I said that's the mentality of public sector workers, and it is. I've witnessed it firsthand. Money has to be used up or it's lost is the mentality, and cost justification is pointless to the public sector. The U.S. taxpayers will foot the bill, and being the wealthiest country in the world with the world reserve currency, money is limitless in the U.S. in their minds.

There are two of them in Paris... I think I know where you were now. Computer Science isn't the string suit of France, mathematics and theoretical physics are. Those courses being closed only to those who passed the entry contest.

Anyway.

The US is leading in applied science. It isn't in theoretical sciences, where those awards are given. That may be why.

 

Growth isn't necessarily sustainable. The market logic doesn't necessarily gives the money to those who actually deserve it. If that held true, nvidia would have been crushed at one point when they had inferior products. What did the market say? That it should have half the market share even it shouldn't with their offer.

Growth is what ended many empires. Romans for instance. When you have to destroy resources, rely on superficial financial subterfuges or sell your moral values to sustain growth you end up slowly destroying yourself.

If it weren't for capitalism, Daesh wouldn't exist, so yeah, capitalism is a vector of growth in every industry sector.

 

So? Economy is something, politics is another. (Germany is destroying itself by doing that by the way) the goal of economics is to make money,  the goal of politics is to make people happy and to offer them freedom and personnal growth. Those are things where capitalism and economics in general fall short. You clearly don't realize there is more to life than economics.

 

Oil is strictly an economic choice, but it's a choice that makes no sense on so many other metrics, so I'll have to insist, sustainability has to be seen as is and not only through the prism of economy.

Well. .. US News doesn't know there are universities outside the US, so I am not surprised of that ranking then..

[patrickjp93]

34 minutes ago, laminutederire said:

There are two of them in Paris... I think I know where you were now. Computer Science isn't the string suit of France, mathematics and theoretical physics are. Those courses being closed only to those who passed the entry contest.

Anyway.

The US is leading in applied science. It isn't in theoretical sciences, where those awards are given. That may be why.

 

Growth isn't necessarily sustainable. The market logic doesn't necessarily gives the money to those who actually deserve it. If that held true, nvidia would have been crushed at one point when they had inferior products. What did the market say? That it should have half the market share even it shouldn't with their offer.

Growth is what ended many empires. Romans for instance. When you have to destroy resources, rely on superficial financial subterfuges or sell your moral values to sustain growth you end up slowly destroying yourself.

If it weren't for capitalism, Daesh wouldn't exist, so yeah, capitalism is a vector of growth in every industry sector.

 

So? Economy is something, politics is another. (Germany is destroying itself by doing that by the way) the goal of economics is to make money,  the goal of politics is to make people happy and to offer them freedom and personnal growth. Those are things where capitalism and economics in general fall short. You clearly don't realize there is more to life than economics.

 

Oil is strictly an economic choice, but it's a choice that makes no sense on so many other metrics, so I'll have to insist, sustainability has to be seen as is and not only through the prism of economy.

Well. .. US News doesn't know there are universities outside the US, so I am not surprised of that ranking then..

I took Multivariable calculus and differential equations there. I think it was in the northeast quadrant, about a twenty minute walk to the river.

 

All the major theoretical science stuff is here too! When was the last time MIT won awards for their theoretical contributions which continue ceaselessly?

 

The market gives money only to those who deserve it unless the market is forced not to. Growth is always sustainable as long as it isn't artificial. As demands shift new opportunities arise. Green tech will take off more as dirty tech starts to make the world look worse. People will be more willing to pay for it then. It's just not that economically viable to replace other technologies yet.

 

Nvidia has never had vastly worse products, and Nvidia's drivers have still always been far better than ATI's and AMD's. Yes, every once in a while a mistake is made and cards burn, but the stability and performance have largely gone unmatched. When has Nvidia deserved to lose? Fermi? The 6000/7000 series from AMD weren't any better.

 

Rome was destroyed from within by corruption. Had it been better managed it would have flourished into eternity. Growth didn't destroy it. Foolishness at the top did.

 

Daesh exists because Islam exists. Captain has nothing to do with it. The envious, backwards-thinking cultures centered around Islam are the reason for Daesh. If they gave up being envious and hateful they could take part in the success, but they choose not to. It's just like the Palestinians filling in the wells in Gaza and the West Bank because the Israelis dug them. Israel isn't the problem. The mindset of the Palestinians is, just as Captalism is not the source of Daesh. It's utter nonsense to claim otherwise.

 

Germany is not destroying itself from an economic standpoint. Angela Merkel is destroying the cultural unity and fabric by forcing so many Syrians on German towns unable to sustain it and forcing cultural clashes that are violent. She's being Germany's Nero. The economics still have nothing to do with that. Germany is the only country keeping the EU fiscally and industrially afloat, and it's because it embraced capitalism.

 

Oil is sustainable for 200 more years. If green tech becomes more economically viable than oil before the reserves are tapped out, then the world will naturally migrate that direction. Sustainability should always be viewed from multiple lenses, but economics is the big one. Programs need to be more optimized for economic reasons. Namely, the economics of electricity. It's just one example, but it's representative of all of them.

 

Yes it does. Berlin, Cambridge, and more are on there.