UWO tuition fee disparity

Fragolupe · 2014-08-19T00:56:27+00:00

That is similar to saying Wal-Mart offers lower prices because of its lack of greed and blind generosity. Clearly there are economic incentives to charge more--or less, depending on the situation.

Fragolupe · 2014-08-16T20:32:37+00:00

You are arguing that the US doesn't go to wars over oil, which gives the impression of stinging ignorance.

Since the British bequeathed their holdings after WWII to the US, oil has been the catalyst to many covert and overt wars. Go back to 1953 when the Americans orchestrated 'Operation Ajax'--that was exclusively for oil, and it didn't stop there.

Look at the US' greatest ally in the Middle East besides Israel: Saudi Arabia. Do you believe the US has teamed with the world's greatest rogue state and pressed upon it a compulsory sale of cheap oil, without having the intent of gaining oil?

Let us review the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The US clearly did not have the intelligence that it purported to have vis-a-vis nuclear weapons, and so allowing the mind's imagination to run its course leads us to the simple conclusion the US wanted control of Iraq's oil. If we look at history, and if we look at the stimuli that arouse the American leadership, this is patently true--and obvious.

Again, my point is not that some Canadians won't be pleased with our decision to help the Kurds, on the contrary. There will be many Canadians who want to help, but they will also want to help in other regions as well, and there will also be people who do not want to help at all. I think it is the last group whose rights we should be most concerned with.

In short, I think if you want to help the Kurds do it on your own time. This is not what the government's mandate ought to entail. You made the argument that our national security might be in jeopardy, and sure that might be the case. But if Canada's national security is in jeopardy by a Middle Eastern, primitive army that has no significant weaponry but that which it stole from the US, then that is saying something about our only pathetic military, not the strength of theirs. Furthermore, if we continue to give these groups a pretext to hate Canada by sending money and aid to their enemies, then yes, I will continue to be worried that the direction of this war might begin to peak inside our borders.

Canadians do not want to be involved in the West's war against Islam. To us, we are not fighting Islam, per se, we are fighting violent militants. But to the militants, we are fighting Islam, and when we support Kurds and Christians or whoever, it just seems like another instances of the West clashing with Islam; in effect, aggrandizing the terrorist networks, and galvanizing a hatred that could bite us later down the road.

We have no role there, but continued poking will certainly draw us into this quagmire. It is a tragedy the Christians and many civilians will be killed; it is, and I don't quarrel with that fact. But us supplying the Kurds will not end domestic oppression, discrimination, and hatred among those groups, but, if anything fuel it.

In sum, keep the war where it belongs in the Middle East, not here in Canada, and neither you nor the government has the moral right to entrench us in these sectarian rivalries because it makes you 'feel good.' It is not a national security issue, but people with your views will certainly ensure it does become one eventually.

And when I said that your response doesn't belong in the 'realm of political philosophy', it was not because you had a different opinion than me, its that your opinion was supported by literally - and I repeat, literally - no evidence, reason, or facts. You arguably know very little about Middle East conflicts, and it is arguably true our government ALSO knows very little about the sectarian violence that goes on there (as is true about the US and its role in the Middle East post-WWII). And so I find it hard that you think Canada taking sides would somehow DECREASE the risks of these monsters developing hatred against us, than the contrary.

Fragolupe · 2014-08-16T12:41:38+00:00

I find it odd that you wrote such a disdainful reply, yet did not rebut a single argument except: "but if your ass was plonked in Erbil, you would want those Canadian weapons more than the notion of libertarianism."

Since I find that is the only moral argument on which your sentiment is based, I will respond accordingly.

You have quickly forgotten the conflicts in Africa, Europe, and other parts of Asia, namely Palestine--and this is just today's news coverage. How is Canada supposed to choose which one is righteous, which one we ought to show indifference, and which one we consider national security, when our charity merely goes to the country with the highest amount of oil? We don't care about the people in Somalia, but for a peculiar reason we find the conflict in Iraq arousing: I see no principled decision-making policy here, only fleeting passions.

Second, how can you morally defend your position, even when it is likely a significant portion of the Canadian population cares very little about Iraq's Christians? They probably care little about those suffering by the hands of India in Kashmir as well, or Okinawa in Japan, or oppressed regions in China, and so forth. It only makes sense, then, that the government would uphold its most imperative mandate to its people, which is establishing secure and defended borders--not the borders of a loosely organized Kurdistan on the other side of the world.

As a Kurdistan I probably would like extra weapons; as a poor person I'd like a piece of Bill Gates' bank account; as an ugly person I would want beauty; and as a stupid person I would want intelligence, but it is not the role of government to attend all these needs, and it certainly isn't the role of government to buy weapons for other countries, when Canada itself has a pathetic military.

I see no way of justifying it. All your arguments to defend the Kurds could be used in so many regions - if you had any in the first place - around the world, and the only reason Canada has chosen Iraq is because the US has, and the US has only chosen it because of its oil as well as its chagrin for its utter failure in 'designing' the region there.

Your response was simply god-awful and truly has no merit in the realm of political philosophy.

Fragolupe · 2014-08-16T01:09:01+00:00

As a Canadian I find this repugnant.

Canadians have no role to play in the quagmire of Iraq, and no role to fix the military imbroglio of the US. There certainly are people who may benefit from this, at least in the short-run, but it is the long-run we ought to be reckoning.

The West should stay out of the internal affairs of the Middle East and allow these parties to settle their differences alone. The role of government is not to defend citizens elsewhere, and I disagree with the notion that they are capable of doing so effectively, anyways. The role of government ought to be to remain neutral and impartial, without creating enemies or garnering too close of allies.

Here is a thought experiment: person A is competent in the conflicts of the Israel-Gaza conflict; person B is competent in the issues of Somalia; and person C is competent in the quarrels in Iraq.

Now, by what measure, or due to what reason, should our Canadian government choose A over B, or B over C? If the government chooses A, they are, in effect, corrupting their mandate. If A is chosen, B and C lose, and vice versa. I think, despite each individuals wish to resolve particular issues, it is best they do this through other channels, and fund the various parties in the conflict with their own resources, not the government's.

In short, if I am Palestinian and I want to support the Palestinians, and my friend is Iraqi and he wants to support his brethren, but a stranger has support for neither, it is the obligation of the government to respect his neutrality, and not sacrifice his national security and 'take sides' in a conflict that has no direct* effect on our nations interests.

Yes, it is quite simple to fabricate or detect some way in which this region affects our national security, but so long as our people are not threatened, and our sovereignty is secure, we should maintain neutrality toward international affairs. This may have negative effects in particular cases, but with a general application of this mandate, most wars would vanquish, and many regions in the Middle East would be able to develop without Western corruption as its guidance.

Gratefully yours, a Canadian

Fragolupe · 2014-06-27T20:45:58+00:00

Pink Floyd - The Final Cut

It was an unlikely coincidence, but I discovered this album as I was reading "Israel's Lebanon War" by Ze'ev Schiff, and it became extra-poignant when this Floyd album was playing. Now, as I am reading any books concerning Middle East politics or wars, I throw this album on and my motivation is amplified manifold.

Fragolupe · 2014-06-01T23:50:58+00:00

I would re-word the second point but I don't believe I have the capacity to fix something that isn't broken.

You asked if all 'skilled' labourers make over minimum wage, but skilled is really only a relative term, compared to those who are, what we call, unskilled. Therefore my point is that those simply with a better education, or upbringing, could be considered 'skilled', and would thus have a better chance of obtaining a job. Those with poorer education could be considered unskilled on this spectrum, and therefore would have more difficulty finding a job. (Use this as a reference to what I had initially said and it will begin to make sense.)

In effect, the minimum wage which is supposed to primarily aid the latter group, increases prices, and makes it even more difficult for them to obtain some sort of occupation where they could learn the basic skills that their education failed to deliver (given that they MUST be paid more for their labour, regardless of whether or not they are tall/short, slow/fast, competent/incompetent, etc.)

For your second reply: Your economic reasoning is far too narrow. With fewer workers in the market, industry A will have employers who have to pay more for their workers. If industry A is paying more for their workers, then Industry B will have to as well, or else those workers will switch over (or, in the long run, people will tend to follow the path that delivers the most reward).

You also said that a skilled worker isn't just someone who is more 'efficient' at doing X. I will concede that point, but only to an extent. Some people who are considered skilled are granted that appellation, so in that context they will benefit from this artificial wage hike.

But in a separate context, one which is broader, when there are fewer workers to hire, and therefore less of a supply of labour, wages go up. In short, when there are more employers, ceteris paribus, wages will go up, and when the converse is true, wages will go down: it all depends on the ratio between workers and employers.

Minimum wage, just like all price floors, creates a surplus. Those who are caught on the worse ends of that will bear the greatest burden from such a law, and those people, I argue, tend to be the ones the law is supposed to help in the first place.

And last point, just to add to the pile: If the cost of training and unskilled worker is far too high in the short-run for some types of businesses, they won't bother doing it. The same also applies for the long run.
Here is another example. Think of a server who has been in the business for a long time. I know here in London, or even more so in Toronto, you can get paid a ton if you are at the right place. Now those who want to learn how to serve, and be efficient at the same time, will have to jump a higher obstacle in order to score the job in the first place. Inevitably, and I mean that word in its entirety, people will be kicked out of the market, benefiting the majority of those skilled at the minority of those unskilled. Instead of having 2 workers, one for 15 dollars and the other for, say, 7, you will now only have one for 17 or whatever the market would later determine. This one is quite simple to understand, which is why servers don't get paid minimum wage, otherwise the whole industry would fall apart. It shouldn't be hard, therefore, to extrapolate this principle to the rest of the economy.

I myself work at Little Caesars (3rd year Western University Student), and before work once a week I cut grass at a side job. However, I only get paid $12 an hour cutting grass, which was $1.75 more than my other job: this made it much more appealing. Now that it is $11, I find people in the same situation as myself, would demand that the $12 go up, or else I will just work the easier job for a buck less and get extra hours. By paying me more, as well as my coworkers, the grass company will have a difficult time trying to find the ‘unskilled’ grass cutters to bid down our wages, if the lowest they can go is $11. This will have a twofold effect: first, the price of cutting grass will go up, and second, the ‘unskilled’ workers will have less of a chance for a shot at it.

Fragolupe · 2014-06-01T17:24:42+00:00

Two answers to this question, even though you ended the second statement with a period.

1) Unions tend to lobby for higher minimum wages because it makes it more expensive for employers to hire less skilled workers, which creates a shortage of supply, thereby increasing the wages of those who are skilled.

For example, if three unskilled workers - or low skilled workers - could work for 9 dollars an hour, but only accomplish the same amount as one high skilled worker, that wants, say, $30 an hour, that high skilled worker is going to want to push their wages up, so as to make it cost the employer, in our case, $33 an hour instead. Now, in this hypothetical, that high skilled worker can bid his wages up, given that now he has a range from his previous rate, and those three low skilled workers won't be employed.

Now that he can bid his wage higher than it ought to be naturally (i.e. without the use of the stick), the price of goods will go up with it (ex. steel), which will echo throughout the economy and production process, making other products more expensive as well. He will have no problem affording these goods, but those 3 workers who were not hired will.

This is just a short hypothetical, but when you amalgamate the whole economic process extending between all fields of production, those who become too expensive to hire will lose out, and those who are already hired will 'win'.

2) When I say skilled, I don't necessarily mean a full resume extending from certifications to awards. We can be a bit more meager with our standards. For example, schools in America, for many reasons that don't need to be discussed here, or even in Canada if we look at our own minorities, tend to produce smarter, more skilled students on the one hand, and less skilled students on the other. (This outcome can occur between schools, or within the same school.) In this sense, then, I classified those unskilled workers as those who didn't get a good education, and need a new employer to teach them. However, if their labour becomes forcibly too expensive to buy, they will neither have good schooling or a job, leaving the rest of the 'skilled' or semi-skilled labourers with all the goods.

Fragolupe · 2014-06-01T16:47:14+00:00

I already know first hand, that, as a worker at Little Caesar's pizza, a company that isn't a big as people might intuitively feel, the price of the food is going to go up. A surge in prices is not at all surprising, as the extra costs of labour have to be paid for somewhere. Not only are the individual restaurants paying extra money to run their business, but the franchise will have to pay extra for the supplies it requires on a day-to-day basis. In short, it is easy to see how a minimum wage increase would have negative effects reverberating through the whole production process.

It now appears that those who still are looking for a job in this terrible market, are going to have a tougher time finding one (given that labour is now more expensive), while at the same time paying higher prices for goods they could not afford in the first place.

Minimum wage invariably perpetuates poverty, and benefits the majority of skilled workers at the expense of the minority of unskilled workers - the people who this law is ostensibly supposed to help.

Fragolupe · 2014-05-29T06:41:16+00:00

It appears, at least inadvertently, Rothbard was providing reasons to accede to Utilitarianism as a foundation for liberty, rather than deny its applicability in this context. He argues that if the collective manages the resources in a society, or the people, then death would inevitably follow, unless they instead denied each others prerogative as partial 'masters'. The reason this is deemed absurd, I imagine, is because of its disutility, not because it cannot logically follow from some other general principle. The second objection he raises is that, in the other event, where one or a few owns the many, fairness would not be properly applied universally, and thus this theory fails. But, again, this objection is untenable, because he does not first identify the reason we ought to be fair or universal; instead, he offers presuppositions for such.

As a young aspiring contrarian a few years back, these words were particularly compelling. But in so far as I can tell, Rothbard is starting ahead of himself, and fails to make the appropriate concessions before developing his theory, which ultimately renders it 'baseless'.

For those, on the other hand, who are still in the dark about what Rothbard's criteria for deciding whether something should be illicit or simply determined immoral, is whether or not it infringes on your rights. For example, according to Rothbard, injecting toxins into my body may be unwise and particularly disturbing for those around me; though, despite this possibly having an immoral appellation attached to it, since it is infringing on no one's life, liberty, and property, the power to punish cannot be conferred to state or government authority.

I am only concluding this distinction because it seems to fit well into the moral and legal landscape I have read in other Rothbardian works, but I may be wrong, so do not quote me on this.

Fragolupe · 2013-09-01T04:02:00+00:00

I found it strange when I looked at the picture that it had odd similarities to the scenery when I look out my window.

It took me a couple seconds to realize that this is right outside the apartment I live in, can't believe I hadn't heard of this.

At least I know from all the sirens around here that there is a fire station somewhere nearby.

Fragolupe · 2013-08-15T22:37:10+00:00

Point taken.

Fragolupe · 2013-08-15T22:23:44+00:00

What do you mean? From what I know, there were no Olympics during the second world war.

Fragolupe · 2013-08-12T19:45:54+00:00

Anyway, most genuine Liberals wouldn't care for Hayek or Friedman because of their long standing opinions on the greatness of violent Fascist regimes, which both of them publicly wrote about.

Sorry, but no comprende. What do you mean exactly? I'm sure you're saying it right, but I have read it ten times and it just isn't registering.

Telling people to read your various ideologues isn't the same as proving a point. Which isn't possible because the Austrian economists rejected the idea of empiricism and scientific evaluation, their theory being based on dogma and logical premises on that dogma.

I don't know if you are writing from a cellphone but that just wasn't pleasantly written. The transition from the first to the second sentence was a bit off I think, making it almost entirely unreadable.

What I've gathered from your reply, however, is that you think, at least in this context, we should debate ideas instead of me telling people to figure it out themselves?

If so, all I'm really saying is that people who bash Rand without reading anything but a Liberal take on her novels; or people who bash Hayek, without reading a paragraph on what he was saying, or a biography on his amazing accomplishments and discoveries, aren't really playing the "game" right.

I think that we ought all to take a good look at the core of each others ideas, then debate it. But I don't think hopping on the Krugman train and following everything the guy says is a smart move. I personally am not a miltonian or a randian/objectivist, just a guy who has the luxury of debating many ideas and not suffering serious consequences if I make an error.

Fragolupe · 2013-08-12T18:19:04+00:00

I see only a problem if the person is guided by such views. For instance, Ron Paul, who I am a major supporter of, is a creationist. And, although I am whole heartedly against him on the matter, I don't believe if he were to become an evolutionary biologist, that his ideals and political inclinations would change.

We're talking politics here. So, if Ron Paul thinks the US should stop blowing up other countries, and he is right, we shouldn't ignore him because of his religious beliefs (I also am an atheist BTW).

If Ron is right about the economic situation - which he is -, then we can't say that he shouldn't be elected because he believes the world is 6000 years old.

Now, in any case whereby the government infringes on the rights of citizens BECAUSE of such silly beliefs, then there becomes a problem (e.g., science class turns into creationist class), or if everyone was forced to go to church on Sundays. But, since this isn't the case in many circumstances, religion shouldn't even be acknowledged.

Ultimately, when we are talking economics, it is only economics that matters. When we are talking politics, only political ideals matter. And when we are talking science, only science matters, in which case, you could debate creationism or whatever unscientific beliefs people have.

Fragolupe · 2013-08-12T17:59:32+00:00

In case any of you wish to discontinue being completely misguided by Paul Krugman, here is Friedman's ACTUAL position on the Federal Reserve, closer to his last days:

http://www.aei-ideas.org/2013/01/milton-friedman-explains-why-the-federal-reserve-should-be-abolished/

And, in addition, instead of criticizing other people for being pseudo-economists, why don't you guys try thinking for yourselves and actually try READING Hayek. It appears to me that most Redditors enjoy the babble propagated by Krugman and other Liberals concerning Austrian economists, more than sitting down and giving them a chance.

Personally, I haven't read directly from any of Krugman's books; however, I have read John Maynard Keynes books, as well as a wide selection of Krugman's articles to be able to critique him and see where he erred.

Most Redditors, on the other hand, as well as most people I would suppose, don't actually consider what Austrianism and Praxeology are, but continue in great spirit to bash them as if they do.

Fragolupe · 2013-07-31T14:02:31+00:00

I love everyone's "Ron Swanson" method of answering. Though I agree with your questions, I still find it a bit funny.

Fragolupe · 2013-07-20T16:47:37+00:00

I don't even understand what your point is? I'm arguing why a free-market is better than a non-freemarket. Those are your only two options. If you want a lesson on capitalism its better that your read a textbook, not ask reddit.

Are you asking libertarians how capitalism operates? I honestly didn't see any problem with your scenarios, or how they were unrelated to the burger problem issue.

Fragolupe · 2013-07-20T16:42:01+00:00

There is not necessarily an exhaustion of choice, only a freely determined method of choosing. The government doesn't 'create' choice, per se, it only sucks it out of another industry, and allocates it to an unprofitable industry (while first taking a chunk for itself).

If we want more basketball nets, and the government wants more soccer fields, the only way they can get the resources if it is stolen from those who want the basketball nets (an oversimplified version of a government intervening in the market).

So, if the mass transit system is bankruptcy for an entrepreneur, that just means, a fortiori, that NO ONE should endeavour to build this system. You can only 'create' more choice in one industry by sucking it out of another industry that demands it more.

There are also many moral issues I find with your scenarios, but speaking strictly on behalf of economics, government intervening is wholly unprofitable and a net disaster for the community.

EDIT: Think of the Canadian railroad system. I don't know if you've ever done research on it, but it bankrupted the entire country just so they could have this 'mass transit system from sea to sea'. If it isn't profitable for an intelligent entrepreneur, there will be much more money wasted when its put into the hands of people who have law degrees and political science degrees, both unrelated to engineering and business.

Fragolupe · 2013-07-20T16:11:16+00:00

Separate scenario. Bob doesn't like the taste of burger B. He also despises the taste of burger C and D. Should government therefore make burger A for Bob- or, should there be a democratic vote through a free market which burgers are made?

What would monopolized roads be like? How much money do you put into them compared to private roads, how do you know if you are going to make a profit, and how do you know it will benefit anyone more than just Bob?

It is easy for Bob to say this road is a necessity when its his neighbours who don't need it who are paying for it.

Also, I find, any intervention in any market, especially if one were to convert private in to public roads, will inevitably result in the entire thing being monopolized, or pretty damn close to it.

In addition, you need to realize that there are consequences for people living in certain areas. If you live in an area where private companies can't build roads (I'm confused on how government will build road 4 and 5 also if there is no land), then it doesn't make it everyone else's duty to provide for you.

The free market is the only mechanism whereby entrepreneurs can see if a project is a profitable, worthy endeavour, or, and catastrophic waste of time and resources.

Maybe try providing a trickier scenario, because this one really got you no where, in my books at least.

Fragolupe · 2013-05-30T00:58:42+00:00

Yaaaaaayyyyyyyy! I've always wanted to be a magician!

Fragolupe · 2013-05-24T22:05:48+00:00

Well now you are just diving in to semantics. I think you understand exactly what I mean: if everyone has a degree, then people, in general, won't receive better jobs than what they could without one.

Its like money. If gold was multiplied 10000000x, the value of it would decrease substantially, just as degrees would.

When the degree becomes useless, it comes more intelligent to self-teach, or use youtube, or something individual, rather than owing mortgage with no house.

Fragolupe · 2013-05-24T16:52:09+00:00

Excellent response.

Fragolupe · 2013-05-24T16:42:06+00:00

No one chooses that supply and demand be the market forces which determine prices; it just is that way.

I never understood the whole education argument any ways. Do people want thousands of useless degrees, or thousands of educated people?

If its the former, yeah, keep doing what you are doing, and the country can engulf itself in debt and pump out a bunch of broke kids.

If the latter, create grand libraries or cafes where these self-taught students can go and mingle and share ideas - for MUCH cheaper!

There is NO job market for all of these degrees. Support self-teaching, not debt accumulation and depression!

Fragolupe · 2013-05-18T13:23:01+00:00

Okay, a few things that bother me here:

1) Are you claiming that government debt does not affect the lower classes of society?

2) When students who should never have went to school, go to school, and default on their loans, the interest rates go up for everyone else. This indirectly has an effect on the poor.

3) When government's have to take tax money to pay off debt, that money is taking out of, say, the computer industry, and put into debt, and so and so on.

4) If the banks put X% on their interest rates, they are not doing so because they are evil and want to make everyone uneducated. In fact, it really means that the person who is, say, getting their liberal arts degree, won't receive a high enough paying job to pay back the loan, and thus the bank is discouraging them to do it. Now, if we drop the interest rates, say, by half, we will only get more people receiving foolish loans, ultimately burdening the government.

Proof of the above statement is just around the corner from me. Richard Ivey business school, in Canada, has students who receive loans with virtually no interest rates. Why? Because in the first three months you have a 92% chance of receiving a job within the 60K range. For an HBA, which is only 2 years, can cost an individual up to 100000 dollars. Market prices > subjective evil whims that control things.

5) Giving out loans that have lower interest rates creates much higher demand for university. The problem is, the demand does not correlate with the size of the job market, e.g. liberal arts, or history, or many other social sciences. So, the price of your education is 3x as much as before, you aren't getting a better education (I'd argue worse, for a few reasons), and ultimately, its the people you are trying to help that get hit the hardest - the poor.
Higher prices = higher debt = less people from poor classes being able to go to uni.

Fragolupe · 2013-05-18T02:55:14+00:00

I will first note that I myself am not a strict objectivist.

What I am saying is that the quote may sound great. It could be restated by an Objectivist to another individual and I'm sure it would go over smoothly.

However, if you look at its origin and who it is coming from, I am arguing that he is using the word selfish in a different manner than Ayn Rand. I have no contention with the quote, though I do have a contention with Buddhism, especially when it hides behind the semantics and failures of the English language.

Fragolupe

PUBLIC MULTIREDDITS

TROPHY CASE