"A poor person never gave me a job!"

[Bonam]

Those "tokens" haven't just been sitting around, though. They have been invested and re-invested many times and have fueled rapid growth in many developing nations. And in any case most of the sovereign debt owed by Western governments is owed to their own people and corporations, not to foreign governments. My view is that a rapid rise in international trade since 1970 to the current day would have happened largely regardless of changes to the monetary system, but obviously there is no way to know for sure.

Anyway, I realize that your issue with the current monetary system is a recurring theme for you but we are starting to go on a bit of a tangent here. I do agree with your statement that excessive concentration of wealth leads to social instability. The escalating rhetoric on both sides of the political spectrum is, perhaps, a symptom of this instability. But as you are well aware even greater concentrations of wealth existed at various times throughout history before the current monetary system. I really don't think the system is the root cause of all our problems as you so often paint it as being.

[dre]

My view is that a rapid rise in international trade since 1970 to the current day would have happened largely regardless of changes to the monetary system, but obviously there is no way to know for sure.

THere IS a way to be sure. Theres a record of how much of that trade happened as a result borrowing money (selling paper) to fund consumption. Just look at what trade deficits were. If you substact the flow of goods from east to west as a result of monetary imbalance you will see that real trade didnt really increase much at all.

Revisit my example of a guy that can print money! His neighbors will toil away making stuff for him and all kinds of "trade" will be generated. GDP will go up too!

[dre]

Those "tokens" haven't just been sitting around, though. They have been invested and re-invested many times and have fueled rapid growth in many developing nations. And in any case most of the sovereign debt owed by Western governments is owed to their own people and corporations, not to foreign governments. My view is that a rapid rise in international trade since 1970 to the current day would have happened largely regardless of changes to the monetary system, but obviously there is no way to know for sure.

Anyway, I realize that your issue with the current monetary system is a recurring theme for you but we are starting to go on a bit of a tangent here. I do agree with your statement that excessive concentration of wealth leads to social instability. The escalating rhetoric on both sides of the political spectrum is, perhaps, a symptom of this instability. But as you are well aware even greater concentrations of wealth existed at various times throughout history before the current monetary system. I really don't think the system is the root cause of all our problems as you so often paint it as being.

[Wild Bill]

Unemployment for university grads with technical degrees (science, technology, engineering, math) is as low as 3-5% depending on the field, and there are hundreds of thousands of unfilled jobs in these fields in Europe and North America. People getting degrees in art history and sociology are not necessarily "lazy morons" and no one is saying that they are, but they clearly didn't use their "smarts" in the process of picking what degree to go for.

I agree that "artsies" are not necessarily "lazy morons" but still, it is FAR easier to get an arts degree than one in a hard science or in engineering!

While to become a Marshall McLuhan might require even more smarts and hard work than some engineering students it is true that if you simply memorize what you are taught and most important, ALWAYS agree with your prof you will get your degree!

The difference between a mediocre engineer grad and a talented one will quickly become obvious. With an "artsie", a mediocre grad can get tenure, teach others and be respected till the day he dies.

We went through a phase in the 80's where unemployment was high and business demanded at least a BA for many jobs. The BA could be in anything, since the job usually barely required a high school level of education. It was just a way to cut the height of the stack of job applications down to manageable levels.

Then the high tech revolution really began to roll and more and more the jobs were in more technical areas. You needed a degree in something that was actually pertinent to the jobs available. What is an arts degree good for except teaching? While it may be true that the arts are vital to maintaining a common baseline of our history and culture we need relatively few arts grads to serve as professors, while we need far more grads from practical and scientific disciplines.

[TimG]

I guess you've never heard of Anthony Leeuwenhoek. He died before the industrial revolution, by the way.

So? He was a theorist that was not taken seriously at the time. Allgemeines Krankenhaus working in an large hospital in 1847 was the first to show practical effect of germs. Exact pathogens could not be identified until the 1890s when Robert Koch perfected laboratory techniques using technology developed during the industrial revolution. Germ theory requires an ability to identify specific pathogens. This is what actually lead to the advances in medicine that have benefited everyone.

[TimG]

Willard paid 13.9% tax in 2010, which is the only year he's not ashamed to show us. Do you really think he's getting "soaked"?

Who is Willard? Do we really care? What matters is the average tax paid by people - not individual examples because some people pay lower taxes because of the type of income. The lower taxes on dividends benefits millions of middle class retirees as well so simply getting rid of that 'break' because you want to lynch some rich people would cause more harm than good.

The idea that cutting rich-guy taxes creates jobs is fantasy, a fantasy promoted by rich-guys. It rides on the belief that they'll invest it in things that create jobs in America.

The idea that simply raising taxes on few rich guys is going to fix the fundamental structural problems with the economy is a myth. The 'soak the rich' movement uses scapegoats to avoid dealing with these problems. That is why people oppose tax even small increases. It has nothing to do with whether it will have any measurable effect on the economy - just a realization that giving in today without structural reform means the lynch mob will be back tomorrow and the day after until the sums do get large enough to really harm the economy.

[Michael Hardner]

I agree that "artsies" are not necessarily "lazy morons" but still, it is FAR easier to get an arts degree than one in a hard science or in engineering!

That's completely subjective and unprovable. Many engineers that I have met could barely string a cohesive paragraph together let alone an essay. Despite what many people thing - communications skills and general ability is far more important in this changing world than technical specialty.

While to become a Marshall McLuhan might require even more smarts and hard work than some engineering students it is true that if you simply memorize what you are taught and most important, ALWAYS agree with your prof you will get your degree!

You are ignorant about how to write an essay. It's about formulating a thesis and proving it with evidence. Maybe the arts aren't as easy as you think ?

The difference between a mediocre engineer grad and a talented one will quickly become obvious. With an "artsie", a mediocre grad can get tenure, teach others and be respected till the day he dies.

What is a mediocre grad ? Somebody who gets poor grades ? Can't such a person be excellent in the post-grad world at teaching, sales, business ?

Then the high tech revolution really began to roll and more and more the jobs were in more technical areas. You needed a degree in something that was actually pertinent to the jobs available. What is an arts degree good for except teaching? While it may be true that the arts are vital to maintaining a common baseline of our history and culture we need relatively few arts grads to serve as professors, while we need far more grads from practical and scientific disciplines.

Wild Bill you have a very binary and arrogant attitude towards intelligence. How many great builders of our society received top honours in sciences and engineering ?

Out of curiosity, I picked Steve Jobs as an example of an excellent entrepreneur and looked up his Wiki page. Here's what I found:

"Jobs dropped out of college after six months and spent the next 18 months dropping in on creative classes, including a course on calligraphy.[44] He continued auditing classes at Reed while sleeping on the floor in friends' dorm rooms, returning Coke bottles for food money, and getting weekly free meals at the local Hare Krishna temple.[45] Jobs later said, "If I had never dropped in on that single calligraphy course in college, the Mac would have never had multiple typefaces or proportionally spaced fonts."[45]"

According to you, his path should have resulted in a wasted life not as the head of the largest and most successful business of our time.

I have taken you to task on your bigotry against Arts education in the past, and haven't yet seen a good response to my criticisms.

[eyeball]

I dont remember a whole lot of English Aristocrats getting lynched. All they needed to do to break up the aristocracy was take some political power away from the wealthy (removal of the veto from the house of lords), and implement some property taxation.

The next evolution should be the end of lobbying politicians and public officials in private and the end of secrecy on the public's domain.

I really don't think the system is the root cause of all our problems as you so often paint it as being.

It's how a system is used that counts. When it's used in a self serving venal manner for too long expect the people who are getting blown away in the process to...blow back.

The idea that simply raising taxes on few rich guys is going to fix the fundamental structural problems with the economy is a myth.

So is the ridiculous notion that simply rolling up one's sleeves a little higher will do the trick.

[cybercoma]

I agree that "artsies" are not necessarily "lazy morons" but still, it is FAR easier to get an arts degree than one in a hard science or in engineering!

That's not necessarily true. I know someone that have switched from engineering into an arts program because they were burned out from the workload in engineering. They figured they could get a degree easier that way. After a year he switched back into engineering because the amount of reading, research, and writing that he had to do was more than he was used to. In engineering they run their labs and write up reports, but he said his eyes were opened when he actually tried to do an arts program that it's not actually any easier, just different work. For him, in many ways he said it was actually harder.

[Michael Hardner]

For him, in many ways he said it was actually harder.

Key phrase here is "For him". Every individual is different. And every individual has a potential to be successful in some aspect with the tools they have. For Steve Jobs, it was a combination of a caligraphy course, and dropping out to do his own thing.

[TimG]

Out of curiosity, I picked Steve Jobs as an example of an excellent entrepreneur and looked up his Wiki page.

Steve Jobs created his own jobs. The reality is most people don't do that. They wish to work for an employer and the fact is there are few jobs where the prerequisite is an arts degree. You can argue that employers do not understand the worth of an arts degree but it does not change the reality.

[cybercoma]

So? He was a theorist that was not taken seriously at the time. Allgemeines Krankenhaus working in an large hospital in 1847 was the first to show practical effect of germs. Exact pathogens could not be identified until the 1890s when Robert Koch perfected laboratory techniques using technology developed during the industrial revolution. Germ theory requires an ability to identify specific pathogens. This is what actually lead to the advances in medicine that have benefited everyone.

The infant mortality rate that you were talking about was already dramatically improved by that time because people realized the need for cleanliness to avoid catching germs, whether they knew specific pathogens or not. Quit being fatuous. Potential populations were already being realized well before the industrial revolution thanks to advances in medicine that were not because of the revolution, but prior to it.

Moreover, your point about food being transferred all over the country and world is not necessarily an improvement in our way of life. People grew their own foods and traded for local crops. The problem that they didn't have were these mass outbreaks of food poisoning that kill people all over the country because we all get our foods from a handful of sources. They also didn't have the environmental degradation and toxins added to the environment from herbicides and pesticides needed for monocropping to be successful.

People also probably had more free time because all of their efforts were around accumulating and maintaining the necessities for survival: farming, hunting, fishing, building, making things, etc. You didn't necessarily work constantly around the clock like we do today and farming was mostly seasonal, depending on where you lived.

The industrial revolution for all of its advances, brought about a whole new set of problems. You have industrial accidents, road accidents on highways, and while you claim it solved starvation, I think you know that's a joke. We're still trying to resolve world hunger, but more importantly we still have soup kitchens so that the disabled, unemployed, and homeless can get something to eat. It's impossible for them to engage in subsistence agriculture in the middle of a city. You also have a more rapid spread of diseases with people moving into cities and being packed closer together. A whole different set of problems with sewage and hygiene arises.

I don't dispute that there were all sorts of advances from the industrial revolution, but for all of the advances there emerges a new set of problems that need to be dealt with. For every problem that's solved a new problem emerges. The progress of society in the way you describe is nothing more than cutting heads off the Hydra.

[Michael Hardner]

Steve Jobs created his own jobs. The reality is most people don't do that. They wish to work for an employer and the fact is there are few jobs where the prerequisite is an arts degree. You can argue that employers do not understand the worth of an arts degree but it does not change the reality.

So are we acknowledging that Arts education isn't useless here then ?

[cybercoma]

Key phrase here is "For him". Every individual is different. And every individual has a potential to be successful in some aspect with the tools they have. For Steve Jobs, it was a combination of a caligraphy course, and dropping out to do his own thing.

Oh, absolutely. I just get really miffed when people seem to think that the arts are somehow easier than other degrees. Most kids out of high school can drop into any program and cruise along getting "Cs for degrees." Bill is completely misunderstood about the arts, as you've pointed out, but especially when he makes a comment that you just have to memorize things and regurgitate it. You and I both know that this doesn't result in very good grades, especially when the things being regurgitated are out of context in their papers. I find it unnerving when people turn their nose up at the arts without even realizing that the vast majority of our Prime Minister, if not all of them, many CEOs, and other civic leaders have had arts degrees.

[TimG]

So are we acknowledging that Arts education isn't useless here then ?

Useless requires context. Useless if you want to find a job but not useless if someone is looking to learn something.

[TimG]

Moreover, your point about food being transferred all over the country and world is not necessarily an improvement in our way of life. People grew their own foods and traded for local crops.

And when the weather did not co-operate they starved to death. No way that is better. You are so used to luxuries provided to you by the industrial revolution that you have do idea what it would be like to be a subsistence farmer where your life depended on getting a good crop each year. It was no pastoral paradise.

The problem that they didn't have were these mass outbreaks of food poisoning that kill people all over the country because we all get our foods from a handful of sources.

No. People just died from the black death and the myriad of other diseases which are treatable today.

I don't dispute that there were all sorts of advances from the industrial revolution, but for all of the advances there emerges a new set of problems that need to be dealt with. For every problem that's solved a new problem emerges.

Sure. But that does not mean that we are not better off with the new problems than the old.

[cybercoma]

And when the weather did not co-operate they starved to death. No way that is better. You are so used to luxuries provided to you by the industrial revolution that you have do idea what it would be like to be a subsistence farmer where your life depended on getting a good crop each year. It was no pastoral paradise.

And when the weather doesn't co-operate today you lose an entire field of crops because you're planting all the exact same things with the exact same resistances or lack thereof to certain weather patterns.

Now you have traders jacking up the prices of food on the world markets because they're exchanging in futures. So as well as weather weather making people starve to death, you have Wall Street making it impossible for people to eat in some countries.

Moreover, like I already pointed out, when all of our food comes from a handful of sources, when there's a problem with processing hundreds or thousands of people are put at risk, rather than a single community.

No. People just died from the black death and the myriad of other diseases which are treatable today.

Now we have to deal with an aging population and chronic illnesses in a way that we never had to before: cancer, heart disease, AIDS, etc. People are living longer and again it opens up a whole different set of problems.

You have your opinion that we're better off, but my opinion is that we just live a different life. It's certainly debatable, so I don't appreciate you calling me an idiot for thinking so earlier.

[Bonam]

And when the weather doesn't co-operate today you lose an entire field of crops because you're planting all the exact same things with the exact same resistances or lack thereof to certain weather patterns.

You honestly think that a larger proportion of crops are lost to weather today than they used to be?

Now you have traders jacking up the prices of food on the world markets because they're exchanging in futures. So as well as weather weather making people starve to death, you have Wall Street making it impossible for people to eat in some countries.

As opposed to your lord taking all your food leaving you with nothing for the winter while he and his guests gorge themselves every night? Yeah I think I'll take the free market over feudalism any day.

Moreover, like I already pointed out, when all of our food comes from a handful of sources, when there's a problem with processing hundreds or thousands of people are put at risk, rather than a single community.

Er, a "single community" in our society can be a city of millions or tens of millions. So "hundreds of thousands of people" is in fact often far fewer than a "single community". So what is your point here exactly?

Now we have to deal with an aging population and chronic illnesses in a way that we never had to before: cancer, heart disease, AIDS, etc. People are living longer and again it opens up a whole different set of problems.

You have your opinion that we're better off, but my opinion is that we just live a different life.

Yes, living to 80 and dying of heart disease is clearly no better than dying of starvation or the black death at 35. It's just different!

[Michael Hardner]

Useless requires context. Useless if you want to find a job but not useless if someone is looking to learn something.

An Arts degree is useless if you want to find a job ? Well, I don't agree - and I think this opinion shows a prejudice against the arts but ok.

[Black Dog]

An Arts degree is useless if you want to find a job ? Well, I don't agree - and I think this opinion shows a prejudice against the arts but ok.

Yeah I have no idea what skills these people think are involved in arts degrees that make graduates unemployable. Finger painting?

[cybercoma]

Bonam, when did we ever have feudalism in North America?

[TimG]

An Arts degree is useless if you want to find a job ? Well, I don't agree

What is the rate of employment of people graduating with Bachelor of Arts compared to other Bachelor degrees? What is the average wage? All the stats I have seen show that an Arts degree means one is much less likely to find employment and when does find employment your earnings will be less.

[TimG]

Bonam, when did we ever have feudalism in North America?

Aztecs, Mayans and Olmecs.

[Michael Hardner]

What is the rate of employment of people graduating with Bachelor of Arts compared to other Bachelor degrees? What is the average wage? All the stats I have seen show that an Arts degree means one is much less likely to find employment and when does find employment your earnings will be less.

I don't doubt these stats, but I would still like to see them.

[cybercoma]

Aztecs, Mayans and Olmecs.

Funny you mention them. They're finding that their system of agriculture in the Peruvian Andes is actually creating higher yields than modern agriculture. So they've embarked on a project to convert to those systems because they can actually feed more people.

Edited September 6, 2012 by cybercoma