Prison, health care, society

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

[Unkn0wn]

The notion of universal university education is retarded. Nearly everyone in Litho has a degree, since it's free. The end result of that being that university degrees are utterly worthless - and that at the same time you need one just to mop the floor at a local cafe. The system just becomes retarded. I compare that to the UK, where degrees aren't free and.. well - I'll take my 80% chance of being employed in Economics with my BA and earn at least £25k, while paying for my degree over the 30% chance I'd have of being employed in Economics with an MA and earn, at most £7k a year, but having the degree free.

This has more to do with the quality of education in Lithu. universities than with the concept of universal university education. You still have to work for your degree, just because getting access to the studies is free doesn't mean the degree should be a cakewalk.

Belgian universities rate fairly high in the global rankings, so do some Scandinavian and German universities. (all which are also very cheap) So no, you don't have to pay 15k Quid for a high quality degree. What institution do you study economics at? LSE? If you're not studying at a prestigious university for that 15.000 Pounds, you've essentially wasted 15.000 Pounds. Just because you pay a lot of money for a degree doesn't mean you automatically have higher chances to get employed or to get payed much, that's fucking stupid, lol.

In short - why DOES everybody need a university degree? We need factory workers, cleaners and plumbers just as much as we need doctors and professors. Most of the simple jobs don't require degrees.

Not everyone does, but everyone needs ACCESS to it in case they actually want to. That's a big difference, just because you offer free or cheap higher education doesn't mean everyone will end up using it.


First year studying economics and you've already started believing in the power of the free market, what a disappointment. I would've thought the recent economic crisis had at least taught us that neoliberalism didn't work. Your views on poverty are appalling, and clearly you have absolutely no knowledge of real poverty in the USA or elsewhere in the world.  

[PonySlaystation]

12 step is all about acknowledge your faults as a person and forgiveness to put it shortly, which rather reflects the Swedish society rather well, admit you are a failure and then proceed to realize you are just on in the masses of many.

That's the 12 step system for organizations such as anonymous alcoholics. Not prisons.

[Heartmann]

Yes it originated to handle different substance abuse traits BUT trust me they are using it in prisons as well, ive studied three of some of Swedens medium watched facilities, and they all have started with the new 12 step program

[brn4meplz]

You mean a 12 step program like this?

    1.We admitted we were powerless over alcohol—that our lives had become unmanageable.
    2.Came to believe that a Power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity.
    3.Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of God as we understood Him.
    4.Made a searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves.
    5.Admitted to God, to ourselves, and to another human being the exact nature of our wrongs.
    6.Were entirely ready to have God remove all these defects of character.
   7.Humbly asked Him to remove our shortcomings.
    8.Made a list of all persons we had harmed, and became willing to make amends to them all.
    9.Made direct amends to such people wherever possible, except when to do so would injure them or others.
   10.Continued to take personal inventory and when we were wrong promptly admitted it.
    11.Sought through prayer and meditation to improve our conscious contact with God as we understood Him, praying only for knowledge of His will for us and the power to carry that out.
    12.Having had a spiritual awakening as the result of these steps, we tried to carry this message to alcoholics, and to practice these principles in all our affairs.

Thats a bogus system. Sure maybe it helps Religious drunks but thats no solution. I'm sure it's helped many people but all you're trading is a one system of control for another.

Going from a raging drunk to a raging abstainer doesn't solve the issue at hand and serves no purpose at betterment.

[acker]

First year studying economics and you've already started believing in the power of the free market, what a disappointment. I would've thought the recent economic crisis had at least taught us that neoliberalism didn't work.

Just had to single this out (I agree with the intent)...

Even liberal economists know that the free market is the single most powerful economic tool  and model we have. It's just that universities tend to cover the other tools and models in higher-level courses. Just for those occasions when free markets fail for various reasons, be they macroeconomic or microeconomic failures.

Still, trying to build an economy solely off of the free market is like trying to mine coal with only dynamite. It's possible, but it isn't pretty or efficient. Building an economy without the free market is extremely painful and slow, though. Really need a balance...

[Groundfire]

First year studying economics and you've already started believing in the power of the free market, what a disappointment. I would've thought the recent economic crisis had at least taught us that neoliberalism didn't work. Your views on poverty are appalling, and clearly you have absolutely no knowledge of real poverty in the USA or elsewhere in the world. 

Unknown, mega banks manipulating derivatives, then paying rating agencies to rate those junk derivatives as AAA so other people will buy them when there are next to no chances of a good return is not free market economics. That was the basis of the '08 economic collapse and nothing else, it was a banking fuckup and outright fraud, not that capitalism or free markets have failed.

[acker]

Unknown, mega banks manipulating derivatives, then paying rating agencies to rate those junk derivatives as AAA so other people will buy them when there are next to no chances of a good return is not free market economics. That was the basis of the '08 economic collapse and nothing else, it was a banking fuckup and outright fraud, not that capitalism or free markets have failed.

Tbh, that's capitalism in action. Both sides are supposed to rip each other off to the extent that they're able to. Normally generating close-to-optimal satisfaction and quantity on both sides. In this case, of course, that didn't really happen. Information asymmetry or irrational exuberance or overleveraging or underregulation. Or something. I'm not an economist yet.

That's why we have laws curtailing this stuff, to regulate the market and prevent crashes. Or will have laws, if the Tea Party gets the hell out of the way.

Meh, in the meantime, I'll be praying to the FSM that their voters screw them over when the economy tanks from failure to raise the debt ceiling.

[Groundfire]

Tbh, that's capitalism in action. Both sides are supposed to rip each other off to the extent they're able to.

That's why we have laws curtailing this stuff, to regulate the market and prevent crashes. Or will have laws, if the Tea Party gets the hell out of the way.

A free market would allow banks that were stupid with our money to fail. I dont consider the banking sector a part of the market because they do not produce anything except what can be loosely considered fictional financial products.

The mega banks and their financial assets are the ones that create the bubbles that lead us straight into the crashes, most recently being the Subprime mortgage bubble that took leman brothers under, and then a decade before that with the .com bubble.


We did have regulations in place to back in the 80's to keep banks from gambling with our money, but since then have been removed, while all the legislation to protect them from their stupid decisions has remained in place. It's the very definition of racket...

Regulations are fine, they just got to be applied to the right sectors in the right amounts.

[acker]

A free market would allow banks that were stupid with our money to fail. I dont consider the banking sector a part of the market because they do not produce anything except what can be loosely considered fictional financial products.

Just had to focus on this part, I agree with the rest of your statement.

The banking sector is a part of the market because there is demand for it and there is supply of it. And they do produce things. Most notably, they provide a relatively safe place to put your money (and it grows interest) in exchange for access to your money for loans. The leveraging of money they do to accomplish this is considered a feature, not a bug, by almost every economist to date. Probably one of the only agreements between the freshwater and saltwater schools...

They're very similar to low-risk investment vehicles (of course, there are complications like part of the money you put into a bank is always insured).

And last time we treated a crisis involving the banking industry like a free market, the crisis happened anyways. Except it was twice as big with three to four times the unemployed. And then there were Nazis. Banks, preventing Fascism since 1929  

Thing is, there's a difference between free markets and capitalism. It was perfect capitalism for the banks to do what they did, because no free market solution existed that was better and the laws regulating the market were weak. As I said, that's why we have (and are building) laws, to regulate this market.

[Groundfire]

Just had to focus on this part, I agree with the rest of your statement.

The banking sector is a part of the market because there is demand for it and there is supply of it. And they do produce things. Most notably, they provide a relatively safe place to put your money (and it grows interest!) in exchange for access to your money for loans.

They're very similar to low-risk investment vehicles (of course, there are complications like part of the money you put into a bank is always insured).

And last time we treated a crisis involving the banking industry like a free market, the crisis happened anyways. Except it was twice as big with three to four times the unemployed. And then there were Nazis. Banks, preventing Fascism since 1929  

Thing is, there's a difference between free markets and capitalism. It was perfect capitalism for the banks to do what they did, because no free market solution existed that was better. As I said, that's why we have (and are building) laws, to regulate this market.

Let me rephrase my statement. When I state "stupid banks" I am talking about the big investment banks, of which the most famous are JPmorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, Bank of England, DB, and others. Your local smaller bank down the street is not a problem as they do not engage in the higher financial activities as wallstreet does. While all these investment banks provide banking services such as you described, your smaller local bank does not leverage your home mortages at 100:1.

Im just trying to exclaim how free markets do not provide much wiggle room for too much fraud for too long. These banks lend out money they dont have, they dont care if you pay it back and the government will protect them if they lose everything by making you pay for it again. (see 08 wallstreet bailout)

[acker]

Let me rephrase my statement. When I state "stupid banks" I am talking about the big investment banks, of which the most famous are JPmorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, Bank of England, DB, and others. Your local smaller bank down the street is not a problem as they do not engage in the higher financial activities as wallstreet does. While all these investment banks provide banking services such as you described, your smaller local bank does not leverage your home mortages at 100:1.

Too big to fail is a problem, yes, but I'm pretty sure that everyone bought AAA CDO slices and were overleveraged, not just the megabanks. Even countries with a lot of small banks required bailouts for a lot of small banks. Countries like Sweden had a few big banks (relative to the United States) and beat the crap out of them just fine (at least, when they had a similar problem in the 90s).

Would you happen to have stats on the correlation between bank size and unsafe leverage? It makes intuitive sense that big banks would leverage more, but it also makes sense that this would be possible due to returns to scale, which would not be a problem in of itself.

Im just trying to exclaim how free markets do not provide much wiggle room for too much fraud for too long. These banks lend out money they dont have, they dont care if you pay it back and the government will protect them if they lose everything by making you pay for it again. (see 08 wallstreet bailout)

Again, I have to disagree with this. Last time there was a problem like this, the free market proved utterly inadequate for the banking industry for every first world country. Since we can't sentence anyone to indentured servitude for too great a debt for the companies they hold, banks could and did simply declare themselves bankrupt and walk away, screwing everyone over even more. The free market simply doesn't work that well in banking because there are social norms that prevent restitution that would be otherwise be dictated by the market (not to mention that, as previously stated, almost every economist thinks leverage like this is a good thing in the long run due to increased investment). Other social norms also prevent free market action; no one wants to tell Grandma that she lost her life savings becaues the banks screwed her over. Probably because Grandma would vote them out of office, but that's besides the point.

Which is why every first world country builds banking safeguards and laws to correct the market while simultaneously insuring deposits to some level. And it works better than the alternative. Now, I'd be all for much harsher punishments for banks that fail to honor the obligations that they're supposed to cover by law.

[Groundfire]

Again, I have to disagree with this. Last time there was a problem like this, the free market proved utterly inadequate for the banking industry for every first world country. Since we can't sentence anyone to indentured servitude for too great a debt for the companies they hold, banks could and did simply declare themselves bankrupt and walk away, screwing everyone over even more. The free market simply doesn't work that well in banking because there are social norms that prevent restitution that would be otherwise be dictated by the market. Which is why every first world country builds banking safeguards and laws to correct the market. And it works better than the alternative.

I would not quite say that the free market proved to be inadequate to rectify banking shananigins. For every boom there has to be a bust, such as the roaring 20's and the depression. Just because there was a depression means that the free market was in fact doing it's job.

The only reason for why you speak of the depression and for why it got as bad as it did was because of the way almost all banks abuse money through "Fractional Reserve banking" and US federal reserve system monetary policy.

Both these topics can have books written over them so I wont go into it, but the closest metaphor I can give you is that the US monetary system is like a binge drinker and his hangover the next day.

Of all the industries that I would like to see regulated, it would be the banking system, the only thing is that we would not even need the regulations if our government had control over the issuance of it's own currency. The US government does not control the issuance of the US dollar because the Federal Reserve is a private bank with shareholders, they can largely do with it whatever they want.

It is at this point that Government and Private corporation is connected at the hip for why we have this problem with our banking system.

The banking system has been exempt from the free market for about the last 100 years, since 1913, therefore I do not think we can properly judge this statement:

 The free market simply doesn't work that well in banking

 to be accurate.

[Unkn0wn]

Im just trying to exclaim how free markets do not provide much wiggle room for too much fraud for too long. These banks lend out money they dont have, they dont care if you pay it back and the government will protect them if they lose everything by making you pay for it again. (see 08 wallstreet bailout)

To be honest, had there not been a bailout the recession would have probably been a lot more grave. Had we actually regulated banks that are fundamental to our economy better we would've been able to stop them from fucking EVERYONE over.

The worst part here is that we haven't actually drawn any lessons from the previous crisis, sure we've got BASEL III but that's just peanuts in comparison to the real regulation that is needed. Not to mention rating agencies, who are still fucking us over today.

[Groundfire]

We just kicked the can down the road. It's all falling apart right now, only instead of it just being a banking crisis back in '08, it's a soverign debt crisis.

Now it's just gonna be a bigger hangover. People will not draw lessons from these things unless it hurts, and no one cares because the banks, rating agencies and governements are pretty much in bed with each other.

It's why we as citizens of our respective countries need to be educated on what they are doing and the root of the cause. Everyone could be alittle more like Iceland tbh.

[Unkn0wn]

By being a little more like Iceland you mean by becoming the IMF's bitch?

[Groundfire]

Iceland, not Ireland. 

[TheIcelandicManiac]

Iceland is everybodys bitch tbh.

[Unkn0wn]

Iceland, not Ireland.  

Iceland was pretty much sold to the IMF as well

Ireland was half IMF and half Eurozone.

[Groundfire]

Correct me if I am wrong, but I could've swore that they told the bond holders to eat it

[Unkn0wn]

Nah, they ended up accepting, had no other choice since the country was bankrupt, lol.