Printable View
I, still find it hilarious that our liberals want to downsize the governlment, lower taxes, keep immigrants out and are often arguing with the socialists ~:)Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
Liberalism has seriously mutated across the pond ~:rolleyes:
I'm arguing against a brick wall ~:rolleyes:
The student example still stands. The kid with the rich kid has an obvious advantage, because he doesn't need to throw away 20+ hours working to be able to support his study, or his wasteful lifestyle. Discipline and willpower are not necessary for him to succeed, all what's needed is an occasional kick in the ass from his father with the warning "finish your studies or else go take care of yourself!"
The other kid who needs to pay for his rent, clothes, food, university fee, books etc with his own finances- is at an obvious disadvantage. The work he has to do to be able to pay for all that will take away significant time that he oculd have spent studying, or something else.
Would you say it's reasonable for a student to have to spend 60+ hours per week on work and education? It's a matter of opinion, but I think it's unfair, and I expect some people would chose not to go to university because they know they can't handle that.
Let's see, person A having to work harder then person B to get somewhere, is not inequality?Quote:
And your point is what - both still get the education, both still have the the same potential because of the education. Only one had to work harder to get it. That is not inequality. Both individuals have the same opporunity and same potential for success.
In my coutnry students can get 4 year grants. The grant itself isn't that much and won't be enough to cover monthly expenses, so people do get jobs for a limited number of hours per week. If that's not enough or if that costs them to much time wich impairs their studies, they can loan from the government at a negligable interest rate. Wich is what I like about my system- our government makes higher education accesible for everyone.
I don't know how grants work in America, but how many homeless, parentless and cashless kids end up at a good university in America? Let me rephrase that, how many Gelatinous Cube-esqe persons end up there? I don't know, but I bet it's not much. I bet it's the democrats fault, indeed, for giving them false hopes ~:rolleyes:
On the other hand, I suppose that the reason that kids with rich parents end up at Yale, Harvard and Princeton is because of their incredible ambition and hard working nature. Being born with a silver spoon up your ass must make you a better person!
Of course it's not impossible for a poor kid to end up getting a good degree, and become succesful. But only the most hardworking and determined will make it. Having to struggle to get through university is natural and I accept that some people have an easier time. But I don't think people should have to struggle just to get to university.
Yes Redleg, but you are not of an ethnic group widely considered criminal and problematic. You have your health, you didn't have to stay home and support dependents from a young age. You lived in an area where you could get reasonable work.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
Your second paragraph says it all. To make a success of yourself you need to work hard and be smart. The tougher your starting position in life, the harder and smarter you have to be. Ergo more racers starting in pole position are going to win races than those at the back of the grid. Indeed only the truely special ones from the back will make it through.
The point is that in our societies money is spent in the pursuit of more money. Capitalism can, on occasion, be inventive - and is a powerful force when it is. But this is the exception. The majority of capitalism is about safe bets. It is safer to invest in previously safe markets. It 'plays the percentages'. A multimillionaire can't lose in this world unless he really really tries hard to.
The facts of mature capitalism are that it's better to sell to people with money. It's better to offer insurance to those with little risk, it's better to make crappy sequels than make an original film.
The question is; do we mitigate the inequities that capitalism produces by government programmes (social democracy), do we cut our losses and expect the market to fix all - or except some 'collateral' for the benefits of capitalism (liberalism, in the true sense) or do we reinvent society in some other manner (socialism, communism, anarchism, etc).
Its about safe bets because if you are too successful the Left wing governments take your hard work away from you and nationalise it.Quote:
The majority of capitalism is about safe bets
In 1969 we had a successful motor industry, what do we have now. Nothing
We kept mines open for over 40 years that were uneconomical.
NAtionalisation is such a backward step it kills any progression. - I think I will make a new thread about this....
Yep its unfair for the rich kid - because he has no work ethic. Those that can handle doing both work and school are better off then those who can not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Germaanse Strijder
You can get (well used to anyway) governmental loans at a low rate here in the United States also. So your point here is mute as far as I am concerned. The potential of both still remains.Quote:
Let's see, person A having to work harder then person B to get somewhere, is not inequality?
In my coutnry students can get 4 year grants. The grant itself isn't that much and won't be enough to cover monthly expenses, so people do get jobs for a limited number of hours per week. If that's not enough or if that costs them to much time wich impairs their studies, they can loan from the government at a negligable interest rate. Wich is what I like about my system- our government makes higher education accesible for everyone.
And that is your problem right there - ~:eek:Quote:
I don't know how grants work in America, but how many homeless, parentless and cashless kids end up at a good university in America? Let me rephrase that, how many Gelatinous Cube-esqe persons end up there? I don't know, but I bet it's not much. I bet it's the democrats fault, indeed, for giving them false hopes ~:rolleyes:
I know poor kids who work hard that go to Universities that are just as good if not better in their fields then those schools - the point is that if you want an education in the United States your ability and potential to get an education exists equally regardless of your income level. Some just have to work harder for it then others. Some can not afford the Ivy League schools but can get the same type of education and work themselves up the ladder of success.Quote:
On the other hand, I suppose that the reason that kids with rich parents end up at Yale, Harvard and Princeton is because of their incredible ambition and hard working nature. Being born with a silver spoon up your ass must make you a better person!
I think if you earn it yourself your degree means more then the one that gets it handed to them. Regardless of where you go to school.Quote:
Of course it's not impossible for a poor kid to end up getting a good degree, and become succesful. But only the most hardworking and determined will make it. Having to struggle to get through university is natural and I accept that some people have an easier time. But I don't think people should have to struggle just to get to university.
Yep I live in the United States - not Europe.Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
But by finishing the race - they set the conditions to improve the lives of their offspring. And that is a greater success then the social welfare hand-outs.Quote:
Your second paragraph says it all. To make a success of yourself you need to work hard and be smart. The tougher your starting position in life, the harder and smarter you have to be. Ergo more racers starting in pole position are going to win races than those at the back of the grid. Indeed only the truely special ones from the back will make it through.
By all means give people hand-ups to improve their lives, I am all for that, because it encourages people to be self-suficient and productive. Giving people hand-outs only encourages them to be medicore.
If you think that too much government intervention killed the British car industry you have a seriously weird view on economic history mate ~:confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadesWolf
Why?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube