Your News Updates and Photos Here Please ! - johnfas, Ard-Taoiseach and Hermes report from the Dail

** youngdan posted above

cactus flower wrote:

The hunter gatherers work about 2 hours a day. Half the reason for the economic crisis is overproduction. The more stuff is produced, the harder it is to make a profit - you see this with agriculture, where prices collapse if there is a good harvest. China has produced so much stuff so cheaply that the US gave up producing and lived on the tick. If we had worker co-ops we could work until enough is produced and then go home and play with the baby, or play football or plant veg.

That's it but why are we told we have to work 40 hours a week or the world will collapse ? And that's the most valid point above I heard in a long time about China. That's machines and systems for you. Some farmers in Europe are told to destroy their produce or prices will fall. Don't farmers here kick up blue murder if a supermarket slashes its milk products prices ?

The year is 2008, nearly 2009.

Any political system that does not strive for the utopian ideals of free education and free healthcare for all, is evil. Our cruddy system, though slow and plodding, was moving forwards, it seemed. This stepping backwards, despite having created vast wealth during the advent of the Trojan Tiger, shows exactly the purpose of our society.

We cannot ever achieve utopia, no matter what system we use. Idealists, though necessary and beautiful, are doomed to be disappointed. This is no excuse not to move towards it. Our system makes token gestures now and then. And then it snatches what little it has given, away again, in order to keep its slaves as slaves. We're told that advances in technology will bring about equality and that the leisure time for all will be increased. Technology and knowledge have advanced beyond our dreams and yet, squalor and ignorance are on the increase for the vast majority.

Take 3rd level, for example. We have the internet. All third level courses and the study books required, could be put on the internet for free, for all. We could easilly base degrees etc. on demonstrated knowledge and ability. Truthfully answer why we don't and you truthfully answer why we fail as a society.

I might be putting what I say in an overly dramatic and an overly simplified fashion. That does not make me wrong.

Hermes I think this can and should happen as well - society gearing itself up for education. We need to start equating education with work in terms of GDP or something. We could have a society where people work for half of their lives and are entitled to spend the other half in universities if they choose. For free.

I believe people have to work but not slavishly for 40 hours a week for 40 years - that's bollocks. Most wealth is based on food, energy, skills, machines and property, all tied together with WILL. We have most of this stuff now but we need the will. We could easily have a society where education was on a similar footing to work.

It'd be too revolutionary though.

Audi wrote:

It'd be too revolutionary though.

Ahhh. The devil you know syndrome...

To hell with the devil. This is a revolution that's very possible (regarding education at least). We have the technology. Tis the will that's in question.

Auditor #9 wrote:

** youngdan posted above

cactus flower wrote:

The hunter gatherers work about 2 hours a day. Half the reason for the economic crisis is overproduction. The more stuff is produced, the harder it is to make a profit - you see this with agriculture, where prices collapse if there is a good harvest. China has produced so much stuff so cheaply that the US gave up producing and lived on the tick. If we had worker co-ops we could work until enough is produced and then go home and play with the baby, or play football or plant veg.

That's it but why are we told we have to work 40 hours a week or the world will collapse ? And that's the most valid point above I heard in a long time about China. That's machines and systems for you. Some farmers in Europe are told to destroy their produce or prices will fall. Don't farmers here kick up blue murder if a supermarket slashes its milk products prices ?

Private firms are only there to make a profit - even profitable companies are closed down if the owners think they would make more money investing elsewhere. If we want to produce to meet need and then go home we would need to own and control the workplaces ourselves as workers co-ops or some other way. In the Anarchist thread here there is a link to a study showing that Workers Co-ops survive recessions better than private firms. Joseph Stiglitz suggests that in economic collapse industry should be kept going by some kind of government owned Trust. He says otherwise the assets are stripped out and the country doesn't recover.

At the moment with some people working 40 hours a week, other people aren't working. Perhaps we could average it out at 30 hours or so?

youngdan wrote:

Respvblica. You are a republican in the sense of favouring a republic I assume. That is a fine bit of clear thinking. I am listening to a series of lectures on ancient Greece. They had the right idea. Only a man of means gets to vote. Having halfwits looking for a handout voting does not work.

Good luck at the lectures. I'm against elitism, if only that today's genius is tomorrows half-wit or vice versa. The Roman's developed a better and more stable republican system then the greeks ever did by the way. Give me 500 years of roman republican constitutional conflict over any greek philosopher, especially plato.
The Roman republic itself was doomed when the elites worked out the mechanics of setting up a hand-out culture. You give everybody every right you can think of, keep them fat and well fed and then rule way without any interferance.

Ard-Taoiseach wrote:

Kate P wrote:

Re the registration fee increase, I think it's a very positive move. 600 over 52 weeks is less than twelve Euro a week. Less than the price of forty cigarettes a week, or two pints ish. If students had to delve into their own pockets - or indeed their parents, there might be a considerably lower level of dropout. Those who are entitled to grants will still get them.

But if tuition fees come back then grants won't cover the expense and with the actual sum of money for grants frozen, there's no guarantee that the €600 extra will be covered next year. A lot of students will be pushed to pay that €600 with rent, travel, food, clothing, books and stationery expenses, never mind the drink and cigarettes.

Quote :

I haven't much sympathy for the majority of students.

Well students in third level go on to pay significantly higher levels of PAYE than those without a degree since a degree commands a higher pay scale. Indeed the approximate €4200 of tuition fees currently paid by the Minister for Education is more than paid back by the tens of thousands of euro in extra taxable income created by third level education. Fees would undo a significant portion of that creation, to the extent that the measure would become self-defeating. No to fees!

We don't spend much per student anyway:

Sorry I can't seem to get the link to work, but it shows low Thirdy Level entry and low expenditure by Ireland.

The 1st cd was with the Greek situation and there are 6 bringing it through the Roman period. It is not outside the realms of possibility that a republic would be set up somewhere on these models on better yet the US in the early years which is what the Paulites or Constitution Party with Baldwin would want.

The rush now is for the superstate of slaves like the EU.

youngdan wrote:

The 1st cd was with the Greek situation and there are 6 bringing it through the Roman period. It is not outside the realms of possibility that a republic would be set up somewhere on these models on better yet the US in the early years which is what the Paulites or Constitution Party with Baldwin would want.

The rush now is for the superstate of slaves like the EU.

Not disputing this youngdan, but would you like to elaborate on it a bit?

cactus flower wrote:

Auditor #9 wrote:

** youngdan posted above

cactus flower wrote:

The hunter gatherers work about 2 hours a day. Half the reason for the economic crisis is overproduction. The more stuff is produced, the harder it is to make a profit - you see this with agriculture, where prices collapse if there is a good harvest. China has produced so much stuff so cheaply that the US gave up producing and lived on the tick. If we had worker co-ops we could work until enough is produced and then go home and play with the baby, or play football or plant veg.

That's it but why are we told we have to work 40 hours a week or the world will collapse ? And that's the most valid point above I heard in a long time about China. That's machines and systems for you. Some farmers in Europe are told to destroy their produce or prices will fall. Don't farmers here kick up blue murder if a supermarket slashes its milk products prices ?

Private firms are only there to make a profit - even profitable companies are closed down if the owners think they would make more money investing elsewhere. If we want to produce to meet need and then go home we would need to own and control the workplaces ourselves as workers co-ops or some other way. In the Anarchist thread here there is a link to a study showing that Workers Co-ops survive recessions better than private firms. Joseph Stiglitz suggests that in economic collapse industry should be kept going by some kind of government owned Trust. He says otherwise the assets are stripped out and the country doesn't recover.

At the moment with some people working 40 hours a week, other people aren't working. Perhaps we could average it out at 30 hours or so?

This is kind of taking things off at another tangent again but the world's natural resources exist independently of our system of using/managing/controling them. Put to one side all of the elaborate means of control, production, barter, trade etc and imagine we were back at square one. Nobody owns anything. There are just people and their environmnt. Everyone agrees that resources are there to be used optimally and equitably among all who need them - nobody should go hungry or cold. This requires co-operation, hard work and fair distribution. No private individual should be allowed to amass more than their fair share and everyone lives on enough to maintain good health. Nothing inherently wasteful or unsustainable is permitted. Authoritarian systems of administration are vigorously resisted because of their susceptibility to corruption. Around these core principles there would need to be administrative functions - but again these should be run in the interests of the common good. What messes this idea up is when faux justifications are made for why some people 'deserve' more resources than others. Does anyone here still seriously believe that an investment analyst 'deserves' to earn millions of dollars to fool around with derivatives, while a teacher cannot afford to buy a house? I don't see why Einstein should get more food than anyone else, or have a mansion. Isn't the appreciation for his work enough? Why does Ben Afleck deserve to earn more and use more of the world's resources than entire towns of African people? Who is giving more to the world, in real terms? That's the evil of the profit motive imo. Lunatic ideas like competition for profit, and endless growth of profit and lavish systmes of reward are inherently inequitable and unsustainable. It's an incredibly childish way of life.

Are people not slavesat the moment. They work like crazy and if you add up all the taxes there is most likely 70% gone and the rest just keeps you going.

The whole idea of the EU is nonsense. What advantage is it. Don't say look at all the money they gave Ireland because it was robbed off someone else.

youngdan wrote:

Are people not slavesat the moment. They work like crazy and if you add up all the taxes there is most likely 70% gone and the rest just keeps you going.

The whole idea of the EU is nonsense. What advantage is it. Don't say look at all the money they gave Ireland because it was robbed off someone else.

If Ireland wasn't in the euro group at the moment its currency would have gone down the pan by now the same way as the Icelandic currency has.

why the swiss franc gone down the drain

At the moment it looks as thought the whole EMU is at risk due to "emerging nations" crisis - see the ISEQ thread.

'Could the elderly drown more silently, please'

Patsy McGarry, Religious Affairs correspondent at the Irish Times, discusses the prissiness of Geraldine Feeney's rebuke to the elderly:
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2008/1028/1225061111252.html

unaligned wrote:

Aside from Tonys is everyone on this board in favour of retaining the status quo in relation to third-level fees?

I broadly agree with tonys here. My own opinion would be that the system should be thus:

You pay full fees if you`ve attended an expensive private school. The only exception would be minority school where there would be a cultural reason for attending a particular school. I`m happily putting the boot into the Castle Catholics here.

You pay reduced fees if you`re reasonably well off but have attended a secondary school where the kids are of mixed backgrounds.

You pay greatly reduced fees if you`re from a poor background and this money is refunded if your grades are above a certain level.

If you`re from a deprived background you have a proper grant. The end of drinking money for students should end.

The fees that should be free are the ones at post-graduate level. I think Masters should be paid for by the student but refunded once the course is completed with a pass. I think PHDs should be free or close to it(The onus being on the individual departments to make sure that the person undertaking the PHD would be able for it.)

anmajornarthainig wrote:

unaligned wrote:

Aside from Tonys is everyone on this board in favour of retaining the status quo in relation to third-level fees?

I broadly agree with tonys here. My own opinion would be that the system should be thus:

You pay full fees if you`ve attended an expensive private school. The only exception would be minority school where there would be a cultural reason for attending a particular school. I`m happily putting the boot into the Castle Catholics here.

You pay reduced fees if you`re reasonably well off but have attended a secondary school where the kids are of mixed backgrounds.

You pay greatly reduced fees if you`re from a poor background and this money is refunded if your grades are above a certain level.

If you`re from a deprived background you have a proper grant. The end of drinking money for students should end.

The fees that should be free are the ones at post-graduate level. I think Masters should be paid for by the student but refunded once the course is completed with a pass. I think PHDs should be free or close to it(The onus being on the individual departments to make sure that the person undertaking the PHD would be able for it.)

I think a lot more care should go into getting the right student into the right course. There are far too many drop outs and that is a terrible waste of time and public money. Improving the minimum standard quality of courses too. After that, I think no qualifying student who is offered a place should be excluded for want of money. Education is essential to the functioning of society and everyone benefits. I think it should be paid for by progressive taxation. As graduates are in the main the higher earners it would mean they would be paying back over time.

The amount we spend per capita on third level students is one of the lowest in the developed world.

One of the reasons that the dropout rate is so high is because it courses are so cheap. You`re talking about a world where the idea of spending hundreds of euro on a mobile phone (not to mind credit) is seen as normal for most teenagers, as is the idea of designer clothes, as is the idea of foreign holidays as is the idea of an apartment abroad. There are poor people in this country there are people where there is illness at home, an addiction, a large family on a low income but there are also a lot of people who are defined as poor but who aren`t really poor and one of the reasons they are regarded as poor is because they don`t choose to spend their money in the same way that people with an interest in education do. An awful lot of cash passed through people`s hands in the last ten years, even in most working class areas, and it was wasted. There was no long term investment in their kids futures it was frittered away on pleasure no. My guess it came down to two reasons. 1. A guilt over not being able to compete with others in terms of providing for their kids and they decided to compensate their kids that they would spoil them with presents when they had the chance. 2. A culture, established over generations, of living for now and relying on the three brass balls to bail you out if you were stuck in the future. In ten years you were never going to make savers of them. I`m saying that as someone who`s never taught in schools other than ones where that was the prevailing attitude. The idea of saving for the future is alien to most kids. I`ll give you an example. Last week I was talking to a second year class (mostly what you would call working class) about the money they could save by making their lunch at home rather than spending a fiver a day in the shop and then using the money that they would save to spend it on something that they really wanted. At the end of the class I asked them if any of them thought that they would begin to budget. Can you guess what the answer was? All that is a really convuluted way of saying that the amount of people being regarded as unable to pay something towards the cost of a third level education is a lot lower that people think. Much more of it is down to a lack of a culture of postponing pleasure.

The system as it currently stands doesn`t get a whole lot of really deprived kids into third level anyway. Under my system people wouldn`t be excluded who couldn`t afford to pay. What you would have is payment by those who can afford to. If you`re willing to spend thousands sending your kids to exclusive secondary schools why shouldn`t you pay for third level?

The picture of the last ten years that you've portrayed is very telling. People went from having nothing to having earnings and cheap credit. All classes fell for it. Interest was so low, for so long, that it didn't seem to make sense to save. That built up into a terribly destructive bubble.

People haven't felt it yet, but this period of excess is gone for good. We are moving into a different era in which the extent to which we can make the right choices on how we spend money is critical. Education imo is, after the basic physical well-being of the population, and along with sustainable energy supply, the things that we should aim for.

I'm not against charging people the full cost if they are in the top earning bracket, but I don't see any advantage of that over a proper taxation system, with all the bolt holes for the rich taken out of it. I think student loans are just another part of the whole toxic debt era and are a thoroughly bad idea.