Link to the first part of Socialist (lack of) Logic
One of these socialist features of University Life is portrayed in certain subjects; sociology is the prime example, but also Public Policy, a subject I had the great (mis)fortune to study last semester. When basing its raison d'être on the right of Government to control and intervene, it obviously becomes very biased toward socialist frameworks/attracts students with those values. Not to mention all the students mopping around about 'intersectionality' or staff going on strike every other day. Where are all the freedom-minded students?
Anyway, here's a fun example from Public Policy course of last semester.
Apart from continuously reading from Fredrich Engels, taking his words for granted, my lecturer had such a striking example of socialist logic:
Before Industrial Revolution
First she explained to us a view of 18th and 19th century Great Britain, before the technical and economical changes of the Industrial Revolution. She depicted an awful environment, vividly describing how poor women in rural areas had to spend their entire day on sewing tiny, tiny laces which were used for table decorations in Upper-class homes. For this, they made the equivalent of 2 pence. Oppressive, horrible life, lots of them became huckle-backed and blind from working in the dark. Let's just neglect the discussion of historical accuracy of this description and take it at face value.
After Industrial Revolution
Now machines were invented that could do 10-20 or even a 100 times what these women had been capable of doing in a day. My lecturer, consequently, condemned the change in society, arguying that these poor women no longer could spend their entire days on sewing laces, because machines took their jobs - and they became unemployed! Horrible, oppressive unemployment.
You'd think that if sewing these tiny laces all day, which were sold for essentially nothing, was such a horrible treat, finally getting rid of it and being able to dedicate yourself to somethink less harsh - that'd be a good thing. Nono, not in Socialist Logic. Whatever happens, whatever the reason, the oppression of poor workers is taken as given. Also, it's a terribly convenient position to take; when workers do a, they're oppressed. When they finally are relieved from doing a, they're oppressed. Falsifiability, anyone?
Especially awkward is this description of 19th century life when the lecturer appropriately forgot to mention that the standard of living between 1780-1860 increased some 150% for regular poor people like these. Well, well. Nobody accused socialists for being thorough. Or even coherent.
Socialist Logic: Everything is always bad and capitalism is oppressive. Period. Especially when capitalism/globalisation over the last 20 years lifted some 900-1000m people out of poverty. Awful, really.
27 Feb 2014
Invaluable Socialist Logic - Inequality
Link to the second part of Socialist (lack of) Logic.
Socialists' main concern normally is equality, or rather its opposite; inequality. To them, it's the most horrible feature of capitalist societies, and they regularly use studies like The Spirit Level to get their points across; more equal societies are better societes (Also where analogies to Scandinavia are plentiful). They also heavily rely on the measure called GINI coefficient, which shows income distribution/equality throughout a country (0 = everyone has the same income, 100 = one person has all the income; most western countries have GINIs between 20-40)
Anyway, let's have a look at how perverse the effects of equality might turn out.
Let's say we have a country consisting of 100 people. They're all poor, with very little means to get around, living below the PPP $1,25/day (Extreme Poverty Line), with all the bad stuff associated with poverty: disease, low life expectancy, high child mortalities, undernurished etc., etc. Quite bad. On the other hand, however, because they're all more or less equally poor, this country is gonna score very low on GINI, say 5-10.
Now, let's introduce something else. For different reasons, say capitalism or globalisation, 10 of these people start selling their crops abroad, invent some machinery that's terribly useful for foreign people etc. For whatever reason, these 10 people are now a lot wealthier, makes substantially more money, build nice houses for themselves and whatnot. If we ignore spillover effects that socialists generally criticize capitalism for not having, what's going to happen with the GINI indicator? It will soar. Completely fly through the roof. We'd be talking numbers of 60, 70, 80. A riddiculous increase in inequality.
According to the socialist interpretation of GINI, this new country is a horrible place. Inequality, some rich people are extremely wealthy while others are on the brink of starvation. But what has actually changed? Capitalism lifted 10% of the population out of poverty, increasing the standard of living for 10 people - while the rest are still at their previous level. According to Socialist ideals, this country went from equal (and bad) to unequal (and worse), even though only 90 people instead of 100 are in extreme poverty. For all intend and purposes, 90 people starving rather than 100 people starving is an improvement, regardless of what the GINI says.
Since capitalism and globalisation is doing just that, why stop it?
My point here: focus on equality, income distribution or the GINI-coefficient is misleading. It doesn't tell the story and is rather useless to explain lives in different countries. Socialists should stop using it as an argument to why capitalism is bad. Especially when capitalism over the last 20 years has lifted a billion people out of poverty.
Socialists' main concern normally is equality, or rather its opposite; inequality. To them, it's the most horrible feature of capitalist societies, and they regularly use studies like The Spirit Level to get their points across; more equal societies are better societes (Also where analogies to Scandinavia are plentiful). They also heavily rely on the measure called GINI coefficient, which shows income distribution/equality throughout a country (0 = everyone has the same income, 100 = one person has all the income; most western countries have GINIs between 20-40)
Anyway, let's have a look at how perverse the effects of equality might turn out.
Let's say we have a country consisting of 100 people. They're all poor, with very little means to get around, living below the PPP $1,25/day (Extreme Poverty Line), with all the bad stuff associated with poverty: disease, low life expectancy, high child mortalities, undernurished etc., etc. Quite bad. On the other hand, however, because they're all more or less equally poor, this country is gonna score very low on GINI, say 5-10.
Now, let's introduce something else. For different reasons, say capitalism or globalisation, 10 of these people start selling their crops abroad, invent some machinery that's terribly useful for foreign people etc. For whatever reason, these 10 people are now a lot wealthier, makes substantially more money, build nice houses for themselves and whatnot. If we ignore spillover effects that socialists generally criticize capitalism for not having, what's going to happen with the GINI indicator? It will soar. Completely fly through the roof. We'd be talking numbers of 60, 70, 80. A riddiculous increase in inequality.
According to the socialist interpretation of GINI, this new country is a horrible place. Inequality, some rich people are extremely wealthy while others are on the brink of starvation. But what has actually changed? Capitalism lifted 10% of the population out of poverty, increasing the standard of living for 10 people - while the rest are still at their previous level. According to Socialist ideals, this country went from equal (and bad) to unequal (and worse), even though only 90 people instead of 100 are in extreme poverty. For all intend and purposes, 90 people starving rather than 100 people starving is an improvement, regardless of what the GINI says.
Since capitalism and globalisation is doing just that, why stop it?
My point here: focus on equality, income distribution or the GINI-coefficient is misleading. It doesn't tell the story and is rather useless to explain lives in different countries. Socialists should stop using it as an argument to why capitalism is bad. Especially when capitalism over the last 20 years has lifted a billion people out of poverty.
26 Feb 2014
Fundamental Rights - On Glasgow, Edward Snowden and the Inconsistency
Last week the Student body of Glasgow surprised everyone by electing Edward Snowden as University Rector, a notion subject to a number of jokes, including my personal favourite "The most important feature of a rector is the ability to leave Russia".
I'd like to add an interesting inconsistency with this entire debate, about surveillence, personal liberty, integrity etc. Snowden said the following in an interview given to the Guardian:
Key points here are unmolested in their [...] associations. Most people would agree right.
Let's now apply that to other areas, say economic ones. Tax rates, for instance, or even food regulation laws. Where does that leave us?
How is any rate of taxes consistent with "unmolested in their associations"? Politicians decide to take some percentage of anything you make/sell/earn, add VAT to anything you buy, and also take chunks of a large bit out of corporative profits. If anything could come close to "MOLESTING", this would be it.
Ok, let's go with food regulations. In my native country, the rules that apply to retailers of food, producers, restaurants, café or anything connected to food, are extensive and the Government even has its own authority to give permits, inspect and decide upon what you can or cannot do in the food business. Likewise the UK, Germany, France (not to mention EU standards) have regulations for how such business is to be made. Yet again, how can anything be more in line with "molesting free people in their associations"? If I enter into a transaction of, say, disgusting and rotten food, that's my responsibility. Not to mention the obvious point of WHY I would enter such a transaction? (and, if food contains whatever substance I can't inspect on my own and that makes me sick, I say it's safe to assume that neither me nor anyone I know would buy from that company again - i.e, incentives align to produce good-quality food).
Point is, our Socialist Governments (including those labelling themselves as Liberal, Conservative etc) are filled with regulations, tax rates, fees, distortions to freedom - all of which represents "violation to the fundamental rights of free people to be left unmolested in [...] their associations".
Now tell me, if integrity, personal freedom and "Freedom to be left unmolested" are such virtues in terms of tele-communications, surveillence - how come they're NOT virtues in the fields that actually matter? THat is, taxes, price-levels, regulations to people and business and virtually all parts of British society?
Inconsistency. Hypocracy. Lousy. If freedom and integrity are good enough reasons to sanctify Edward Snowden, why are they not good enough reasons to reduce taxes, remove regulation and increase real freedom? Stuff that actually matter.
If you seriously want to embrace freedom, I'll be the first to congratulate you. But until then, stop pretending you're a supporter of freedom only because you agree with Snowden. Get real.
I'd like to add an interesting inconsistency with this entire debate, about surveillence, personal liberty, integrity etc. Snowden said the following in an interview given to the Guardian:
"If we do not contest the violation of the fundamental right of free people to be left unmolested in their thoughts, associations and communications - to be free from suspicion without cause - we will have lost the foundation in our thinking society." - Edward Snowden
Let's now apply that to other areas, say economic ones. Tax rates, for instance, or even food regulation laws. Where does that leave us?
How is any rate of taxes consistent with "unmolested in their associations"? Politicians decide to take some percentage of anything you make/sell/earn, add VAT to anything you buy, and also take chunks of a large bit out of corporative profits. If anything could come close to "MOLESTING", this would be it.
Ok, let's go with food regulations. In my native country, the rules that apply to retailers of food, producers, restaurants, café or anything connected to food, are extensive and the Government even has its own authority to give permits, inspect and decide upon what you can or cannot do in the food business. Likewise the UK, Germany, France (not to mention EU standards) have regulations for how such business is to be made. Yet again, how can anything be more in line with "molesting free people in their associations"? If I enter into a transaction of, say, disgusting and rotten food, that's my responsibility. Not to mention the obvious point of WHY I would enter such a transaction? (and, if food contains whatever substance I can't inspect on my own and that makes me sick, I say it's safe to assume that neither me nor anyone I know would buy from that company again - i.e, incentives align to produce good-quality food).
Point is, our Socialist Governments (including those labelling themselves as Liberal, Conservative etc) are filled with regulations, tax rates, fees, distortions to freedom - all of which represents "violation to the fundamental rights of free people to be left unmolested in [...] their associations".
Now tell me, if integrity, personal freedom and "Freedom to be left unmolested" are such virtues in terms of tele-communications, surveillence - how come they're NOT virtues in the fields that actually matter? THat is, taxes, price-levels, regulations to people and business and virtually all parts of British society?
Inconsistency. Hypocracy. Lousy. If freedom and integrity are good enough reasons to sanctify Edward Snowden, why are they not good enough reasons to reduce taxes, remove regulation and increase real freedom? Stuff that actually matter.
If you seriously want to embrace freedom, I'll be the first to congratulate you. But until then, stop pretending you're a supporter of freedom only because you agree with Snowden. Get real.
24 Feb 2014
A personal account to why Publicly-funded Universities is a very bad idea
The tutorial is about to start. Of the 15 students supposedly in this group, only 6-7 are present. The tutor shrugs and starts anyway. He briefly outlines the content of today's class and moves on to the first topics.
Oh, right. Some background. These tutorials have weekly excercises to be made in preparation of each tutorial. They're rather elementary tasks based on lectures as well as textbook. A few months into the semester, not to mention that the format didn't change during Christmas, even weak students should be rather aware of this by now.
An introductory question is launched at the group, only to strike dead silence. Today, I'm not answering all the questions, I decided in advance. Next question. I can't bear this silence anylonger, I'll do it. These bunch of caffeinated and regular-looking students, pens ready, doesn't seem to follow more than a few lines of thought at once.
15 minutes after the class starts, the first two latecomers rumble into the room. One of then instantly picks up a question, greatly to my delight, only to destroy that initial boost of happiness when the truth is revealed; she has no idea, answers diametrically opposed to what the tutor is asking. Cool enough.
5 more minutes, and the guy who most closely resembles the quarterback in some typical american movie bangs the door, drops his bag on the floor and takes a seat, staring at the tutor. Wait, striking resemblance to, erhm, elementary school.
Speaking for the remainer of the tutorial: the tutor, me or the girl who's basically got everything wrong.
_____
Now, let me ask a few questions. If you come to a tutorial, why don't you participate? If you don't do the tasks or know what they're about, why do you show up? If you intend not to speak/participate, why do you bother showing up 20 min late (on a bloody 50 min tutorial)? If you're not into studying, why are you even at a University to begin with?
Let me get to my point. This country, as does my native country, provides people with free-of-charge education. They allow and accept tons of students. What does this give us? It gives us people who don't want to be here, and shouldn't be here because 1) it's expected of them, 2) they have nowhere else to go, as socialist governments ruin their labour chances by minimum wage laws, restriction and interventions etc.
Also, basic ECON101, what happens to demand of a service when price is artificially held at 0*? Heavily increased. What kind of people? Those who wouldn't pay should there have been a price tag. That is, in econ talk, those who value the opportunity cost for giving up labour over the benefits of University. Now, with a 0-based price tag, their calculations change, sending lesser-motivated students into Universities.
Final remarks. Publicly-funded education may produce these events; students lacking motivation, students being used by governments as a labour market initiative. Oh, and most importantly, standards are reduced so that the general student population (now less able, less productive etc) can keep up.
That's amazing. I'm so glad tax-payers' money is used for completely silent tutorials. Lovely.
___
* = ignoring the effects of certain elasticity levels etc.
12 Feb 2014
Public vs. Private
Yesterday I had two particular interactions with certain institutions. The first, a publicly run and funded health care service, the second a privately owned and operated retailer of pharmaceutical products.
At the first, I was making an appointment. The receptionist was bitter, somewhat angry and seemed genuinly unhappy with being there. I asked for an appointment, and she firmly answered me that 15.00 would do. I politely asked if she could make it later (or even earlier, perhaps?) as 15 was not a very good time for me.
____
The second interaction was with the pharmacy retailer, who looked up when I entered, greeted me politly, had a look on my prescription and excused himself for a moment in order to look for that particular drug. A minute later he returned, apologizing heavily - perhaps three times - explaining that it won't arrive until the day after at 11 o'clock, if I would be ok with that. He asked if I was in a lot of pain, and I answered that I was, though not worse than the days before. He apologized on behalf of the firm again, and promised to have it readily available and waiting for me at 11 the next day. I thanked the nice man, left, and felt somewhat happy anyway.
___
Now, this is not an attempt to prove that private is better than public, although I firmly believe that is the case. Besides, this is probably more of a personal issue than anything else; if the awful women in the reception would have been in the pharmacy I suppose she'd still be awful, bitter and unkind whereas the nice man placed in a public situation would still be nice. And again, the women was probably held back by silly regulations saying that appointments had to be allocated in the exact order people came in etc.
But, I still can't get that feeling out of my head; in private organisations/companies there tends to be a lot nicer people, they treat their costumers with dignity and respect, whereas the opposite tends to be the case in public organisations. There certainly is something weird about that, and I am inclined to believe that it's due to the format public-private.
Responses? Experiences?
At the first, I was making an appointment. The receptionist was bitter, somewhat angry and seemed genuinly unhappy with being there. I asked for an appointment, and she firmly answered me that 15.00 would do. I politely asked if she could make it later (or even earlier, perhaps?) as 15 was not a very good time for me.
- 15.00 or nothing, now leave.Thank you, oh humle Party Representative, for rationing according to what you see fit, and distributing the available resources regardless of my wishes. I am thee eternally thankful.
____
The second interaction was with the pharmacy retailer, who looked up when I entered, greeted me politly, had a look on my prescription and excused himself for a moment in order to look for that particular drug. A minute later he returned, apologizing heavily - perhaps three times - explaining that it won't arrive until the day after at 11 o'clock, if I would be ok with that. He asked if I was in a lot of pain, and I answered that I was, though not worse than the days before. He apologized on behalf of the firm again, and promised to have it readily available and waiting for me at 11 the next day. I thanked the nice man, left, and felt somewhat happy anyway.
___
Now, this is not an attempt to prove that private is better than public, although I firmly believe that is the case. Besides, this is probably more of a personal issue than anything else; if the awful women in the reception would have been in the pharmacy I suppose she'd still be awful, bitter and unkind whereas the nice man placed in a public situation would still be nice. And again, the women was probably held back by silly regulations saying that appointments had to be allocated in the exact order people came in etc.
But, I still can't get that feeling out of my head; in private organisations/companies there tends to be a lot nicer people, they treat their costumers with dignity and respect, whereas the opposite tends to be the case in public organisations. There certainly is something weird about that, and I am inclined to believe that it's due to the format public-private.
Responses? Experiences?
11 Feb 2014
Subsidies for EU agricultue - a critique of CAP
Today I'm in the mood of attacking state-financed industry. Actually not subsidies in general, but a particularly harmful subsidy; agricultural subsidies.
Financially supporting farmers has been a key part of policies for many countries, but moreso the European Union. Since the time of ECC the framework know as Common Agricultural Policy has been in placed, disrupting markets and increasing prices for normal people. It consists of a few different components, such as encouraging overproduction, EU promise to buy at a guaranteed price and to increase general production of crops. (Here's a brief comparison over pros and con for CAP)
As this chart shows, increased European prices is not a very new phenomenon. It's been around for a while.
What impact does this have then?
Not only does the CAP artificially increase food prices for European Consumers, it also harms non-european producers (predominantly African and Asian farmers, i.e the poorest of the poor) that otherwise would have supplied the European market with crops. As if that were not enough, the EU also dumps surpluses on the international markets, surpressing prices further and in another strike hurts farmers in developing countries. It's almost as if the CAP was designed to hurt African farmers as much as possible. I mean, is there anything it can do to do FURTHER harm to African farmers?
Strike 1) Block them from our Markets by Huge tariffs on Agricultural products
Strike 2) Pay our own farmers to overproduce, and sell below production costs
Strike 3) Dump the surplusses on the international markets, surpressing the price African farmers would have sold their crops for otherwise
That's amazing. Together with kickbacks and general inefficiencies with development aid and Remittances outweighting Western Development aid, the CAP is just another measure to harm poor people in other parts of the world.
Disgusting.
Financially supporting farmers has been a key part of policies for many countries, but moreso the European Union. Since the time of ECC the framework know as Common Agricultural Policy has been in placed, disrupting markets and increasing prices for normal people. It consists of a few different components, such as encouraging overproduction, EU promise to buy at a guaranteed price and to increase general production of crops. (Here's a brief comparison over pros and con for CAP)
As this chart shows, increased European prices is not a very new phenomenon. It's been around for a while.
"The averege person in sub-Saharan Africa earns less than $1 a day. The average cow in Europe - thanks to government subsidies - earns about $2 a day. And therein lies a tale of the power of European farm interests and the weakness of African economies". Kevin Hassett & Robert Shapiro (Quote's from an article about 10 years back, so the numbers are probably not entirely accurate)
What impact does this have then?
Not only does the CAP artificially increase food prices for European Consumers, it also harms non-european producers (predominantly African and Asian farmers, i.e the poorest of the poor) that otherwise would have supplied the European market with crops. As if that were not enough, the EU also dumps surpluses on the international markets, surpressing prices further and in another strike hurts farmers in developing countries. It's almost as if the CAP was designed to hurt African farmers as much as possible. I mean, is there anything it can do to do FURTHER harm to African farmers?
Strike 1) Block them from our Markets by Huge tariffs on Agricultural products
Strike 2) Pay our own farmers to overproduce, and sell below production costs
Strike 3) Dump the surplusses on the international markets, surpressing the price African farmers would have sold their crops for otherwise
That's amazing. Together with kickbacks and general inefficiencies with development aid and Remittances outweighting Western Development aid, the CAP is just another measure to harm poor people in other parts of the world.
Disgusting.
5 Feb 2014
Strikes, Global Richlist and BACK FROM CHRISTMAS
Heey!
I took a break from blogging during Christmas and all of January, appearantly. Not too many awful events took place, and consequently, I wasn't upset enough to post anything.
Now, on the other hand, the famous straw broke the camel's back and I really have to comment on ongoing strikes, as I've written about them before.
1) University Staff demands higher wages, a UK wide action, but I feel the local consequences in Glasgow. 2) Tube strikes in London due to cuts, resulting in -950 or so jobs.
The Strikes are somewhat different
The Purpose of the Uni strike is to increase wage ("normal Union demands"), while the London strike is to save the jobs of the union members. Also, the way in which they pursue these targets are different. London strike took a more "regular" approach, by laying down work for a day, resulting in massive delays and bothering a few million people in London. The staff at University of Glasgow, on the other hand, has come up with the somewhat weird idea of 2-hour-long strikes, meaning that classes/lecture are off for 2 hours, but will then be resumed.
So, value free from my point of view, if you ARE going to strike, you kinda want it to be felt by recipients but preferably by your employer. And preferably as much as possible. In this sense, the London strike is excellent. Costumers upset, loss of income, disrupting on a large scale. Puts pressure on decision-makers. On the staff at Glasgow Uni? Not so much. Loss of income for uni? No. Costumers upset? Not really, most part of revenue is already distributed to the Uni. Disrupting? Not really, mostly somewhat annoying.
That is, at face value, the Glasgow strike doesn't even make sense; it doesn't achieve its ends, whereas the London one does.
On the Issue of salaries
This doesn't really apply to the London strikes, because they're concerned with job cuts - not pay cuts! There we might consider if extra Tube costs for millions of people are worth the jobs of 950 workers. Hardly.
But generally, Unions are concerned with wages, and that's what I'm adressing now.
I don't know what the Uni staff generally makes, and I suppose there's a distribution between café workers and professors. But, even disregarding that, I'm pretty sure they're payed above the UK minimum wage. Considering the Minimum Wage then means my calculations are on the LOWER EDGE. Currently the minimum wage is £6,31 for regular workers, resulting in an annual net payroll of about £11 700, according to this. Let's put that into Global Rich List and we find that amounts to world top 6% income-earners.
Hang on, let me get this straight. People, making more money net of taxes, than 94% of the world's population, are striking in demand for higher salaries. Really?
Someone's got to be joking. Quit fooling around, get back to work (or leave, if you don't like it). Don't be ridiculous, annoying the rest of us.
I took a break from blogging during Christmas and all of January, appearantly. Not too many awful events took place, and consequently, I wasn't upset enough to post anything.
Now, on the other hand, the famous straw broke the camel's back and I really have to comment on ongoing strikes, as I've written about them before.
1) University Staff demands higher wages, a UK wide action, but I feel the local consequences in Glasgow. 2) Tube strikes in London due to cuts, resulting in -950 or so jobs.
The Strikes are somewhat different
The Purpose of the Uni strike is to increase wage ("normal Union demands"), while the London strike is to save the jobs of the union members. Also, the way in which they pursue these targets are different. London strike took a more "regular" approach, by laying down work for a day, resulting in massive delays and bothering a few million people in London. The staff at University of Glasgow, on the other hand, has come up with the somewhat weird idea of 2-hour-long strikes, meaning that classes/lecture are off for 2 hours, but will then be resumed.
So, value free from my point of view, if you ARE going to strike, you kinda want it to be felt by recipients but preferably by your employer. And preferably as much as possible. In this sense, the London strike is excellent. Costumers upset, loss of income, disrupting on a large scale. Puts pressure on decision-makers. On the staff at Glasgow Uni? Not so much. Loss of income for uni? No. Costumers upset? Not really, most part of revenue is already distributed to the Uni. Disrupting? Not really, mostly somewhat annoying.
That is, at face value, the Glasgow strike doesn't even make sense; it doesn't achieve its ends, whereas the London one does.
On the Issue of salaries
This doesn't really apply to the London strikes, because they're concerned with job cuts - not pay cuts! There we might consider if extra Tube costs for millions of people are worth the jobs of 950 workers. Hardly.
But generally, Unions are concerned with wages, and that's what I'm adressing now.
I don't know what the Uni staff generally makes, and I suppose there's a distribution between café workers and professors. But, even disregarding that, I'm pretty sure they're payed above the UK minimum wage. Considering the Minimum Wage then means my calculations are on the LOWER EDGE. Currently the minimum wage is £6,31 for regular workers, resulting in an annual net payroll of about £11 700, according to this. Let's put that into Global Rich List and we find that amounts to world top 6% income-earners.
Hang on, let me get this straight. People, making more money net of taxes, than 94% of the world's population, are striking in demand for higher salaries. Really?
Someone's got to be joking. Quit fooling around, get back to work (or leave, if you don't like it). Don't be ridiculous, annoying the rest of us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)