Study: U.S. Economic Status: Again, #1 in the World

Post Reply New Topic

A weak dollar does not necessarily increase demand for it. Remember, a chance in price changed the quantity demanded, a movement along the demand curve; it does not shift the curve. Costs of imports go up if your currency is weaker, yes, I don't see where you are going with that (unless you are trying to link it with oil somehow, but since oil is priced in dollars it is treated differently than if it were priced in Yen). Local prices generally will not rise in countries that are pegged to the dollar unless they import alot of their goods (and currencies that are pegged can always have the peg changed, but I'm still not sure where you are trying to go with that either).



That is not really an example of fairness. Aside from that, it is debatable if having a higher education actually made people more productive or leads to these achievements. Today many jobs require a Bachelor's degree when 20 years ago, you just needed a high school degree (and the nature of these jobs has not changed that much). Also, if you think about it, you won't use most of what you learn in college on the job (how will learning Shakespeare help Bob as an accountant for example). Of course this does vary by major, but even biology majors won't be using most of what they learn (as biologists tend to specialize, and even then much of what they learn is "on the job"). What college does is essentially act as a signal. You go to college, show up to class, show you will put some effort into passing and depending on your major signals something about your intelligence. Your employer looks at your signals and says, "These signal he might be a good employee, let's hire him". If you want to use that as an example of fairness, it is more of an argument against fairness considering the waste and ineffectiveness it created.

Edit: And it isn't really an argument that fairness matters, but a poor example of why fairness might lead to higher productivity. However, this is not an argument for fairness as much as an argument that more of something, like education might lead to more productivity. If we found that eating $1000 steaks increased intellignece, we might want to subsidize said steaks so more people could have higher IQs (which would hopefully lead to new discoveries, higher productivity, etc), not for fairness (since uneven distributions would still exist, and we care about the results of higher IQs, not the mere fact that differences exist. Indeed, we would not want to distribute IQ fairly since it would mean more intelligent people would have their relative IQs go down, making society worse off in a way).

Many people who would not normally have had the opportunity to gain an engineering education did so through the GI Bill. To say that this did not only increase their earning potential but that the country as a whole did not benefit from a better informed and educated populace is so obviously idiotic it is not worth arguing.

IQ is, of course, a relative measurement but if the mental capability of a nation could be improved I sincerely doubt that there would be any negative quality to that improvement. Being better informed and acquiring the capabilities which higher education grants to better inform one's self can only be a positive endowment. To defend ignorance and stupidity seems to be fashionable in some US quarters these days and it is one of the major tragedies of the current scene.

So, if you are concerned about engineering degrees, you should offer subsidies for those degrees, not all degrees. Why is it better to increase the number of engineering degrees? Why is a better educated populace worth having, by and large they seem pretty similar to a non-educated one. Are people who major in engineering going to really know about political issues than non-engineering degree majors? For most of American history, most did not go to college, and people still had jobs and new developments were made (some of the greatest in fact, such as the atomic bomb). Also, if the real pay for a job stays roughly the same, and it once required a high school degree and now requires a college, the person with the college degree and takes the job is worse off than under the system that required only a high school degree (cost of college).

Having a higher IQ is probably more important than having higher education if you are concerned about outcomes. For example, IQ score is a better predictor of job performance in a year than a test of job knowledge. If you are concerned about ignorance and stupidity, college does not change that much. If you are stupid before going to college, you probably will still be stupid after going to college. Aside from that, there are cheaper and more effective ways to reduce ignorance than giving away college. We could put up giant billboards, or teach people to not be ignorant in high school in place of a number of worthless classes most schools have there. Aside from that, your argument is know we should have more education because in your view it prevents ignorance and stupidity. Again, this is not an argument for fairness, but rather ignorance is a negative externality and you wish to correct it.

Edit: You're still ignoring the point that you won't use most of what you learn in college on the job, reducing your claim of the positive impact of being "educated".

I wonder where your contempt for education originates. It seems, at least to me, to be a rather perverse attitude. No doubt stupidity persists in all sectors but I can hardly take delight in that and equipping anybody with more skills and information is, to my point of view, never a negative procedure.

High prices protect resources to some extent, and when they become scarce, we will have to recycle and/or find substitutes. It doesn't stop us from moving on from resource to resource, and using up those limited resources on throwaway goods, which will be thrown in a landfill, and pollute the environment. A sustainable path of growth, in which every law-abiding citizen has at least a livable income and a chance for employment, is much more desirable. It's not that I am against the hoarding of huge amounts of capital, it's that I'm against the existence of needless poverty and economic oppression, for the sake of humanity.

If oil is a normal or superior good (like most goods), then an increase in income as measured in dollars (because of a changing exchange rate, for example) will shift the demand curve in dollars, hence increasing the price in dollars. Both the supply curve and the demand curve shift, the first due to income as measured in dollars, and the supply curve shifts because costs for producers rise as measured in dollars.
Er, the US imports oil, so that a weaker currency makes imports more expensive is pretty relevant (whether because producers demand more dollars for an import, or because you need more dollars to buy a foreign currency to buy that import, the end result is the same)

Why is the attitude perverse? He is not opposing reading or anything like that, only claiming that our current strategies towards education are perverse. Frankly, if he is educated enough to know all of these facts about history and job markets, it would seem that he is in the class of the educated, so he cannot hate education of some form completely. Sand, the issue is not that educating individuals is bad, but rather that the good is less good than expected. Obviously at some point, education becomes a waste, if it weren't that then you would recommend that all people get doctorates and become researchers, which is obviously not feasible.

Economic oppression and needless poverty? The only places we see that are in Communist or socialist countries, so I suppose we could agree that we should be against those systems. The market will provide a path of sustainable growth on its own, no interference is necessary. By following the market and increasing privatization, your desired ends are also met.



By studying and examining the world/education/economics, something you claim education grants, one learns that college level education is not necessary for the majority of college graduates. Over education and over qualification can occur (hear stories about college graduates becoming burger flippers) for many jobs. If you "equip" someone with more skills and information and they never use it again except for that one class, how is that not wasteful? If I take 3 years of French for my degree, and I never intend to or will use French again in my life, am I really better off? Sure, I signaled I can pass 3 years of foreign language, but there are less wasteful ways to signal my intelligence. If we made everyone today go to college for four years, so most people now have bachelor's degrees, don't you think more and more jobs will start to require Master's and PhDs (just as many high school degree jobs now require college degrees)?

Last edited by Sargon on 25 May 2008, 1:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Slightly different than the way you initially seemed to present it. I read it as dollars are now cheaper, so let's buy more dollars (which won't shift the curve). If you are assuming oil to be a superior good, and people's income rise in a sense, then yes the demand curve might shift (although its debatable how much oil really is since it more closely identifies as a complimentary or intermediate good). The supply curve; however, won't shift. Oil production does not always occur in dollars; it is priced on whatever region the production is in (i.e. the Russians do not pay in dollars to build an oil refinery in Russia). The supply curve only shifts if the costs of inputs change, price of other goods change, technological advances/discoveries, change in expectations, or change in the number of sellers. If the dollar falls, the cost inputs for suppliers is not changing (oil is not suddenly more expensive to produce). Oil is sold on the world market at the world price which individual suppliers are not able to change, so suppliers would lose some supplier surplus if the dollar declines in a sense. Although, most would make more money since they can sell oil in these foreign countries at a steady price and make more money in US dollars (as Exxon pointed out). The U.S. imports oil; however, it imports it in dollars so the import is not more costly or less costly per say (if the USD to pound exchange rate was reversed, $1:2 pounds, then Americans aren't importing oil cheaper, its just that the British are importing it more expensively).

Most Americans cant afford higher education. So then tend to adopt the attitude of not wanting other people to have oppertunities that They themselves dont get to have.



People who are in a position of priviledge very much want to maintain their priviledge. Education is empowering and would enable those born into the proletariat to achieve financial success. Basically, those who opposed the GI Bill are people who oppose class mobility. The wanted to maintain the social order by keeping it as RIGID as possible. However, the GI Bill passed.

Obviously some people (including me) neither want nor would benefit from an advanced degree but to assert that all those capable of getting one and benefiting themselves and society by advanced education have done so is nonsense, especially considering the huge expenses involved.

So inequality is basically Not a bad thing because its natural, eH?
Guess what, genetic engineering WILL enable just about everyone who can afford it to be goodlooking and intelligent. Unchecked growth simple widens the economic gap; the more people in a country the MORE inequality there will be! This is why unchecked population growth ONLY benefits the rich elite. Can you come up with a valid argument as to WHY the priviledged deserve what they have when in fact they got it by SHEER CHANCE? People cannot control where they're born and what they're born into. Since Im not part of the elite I certainly Do NOT recognize any sense of entitlement on behalf of the elite!
Social Hierarchies are often based on lies and myths to manipulate people into being subservient and to falsely believe that they are going to get something. I believe in status based on actual Merit, Not status based on heriditary priviledge!! !

Hah! There was a comma splice in that last sentence!

But, what is wrong with everyone getting a doctorate and becoming a researcher? Most research is just pointless garbage, anyway.

You have No idea what you are talking about my friend. The ruling class views education as a priviledge for themselves and seeks to maintain a monopoly on that priviledge! Before capitalism, in the age of feudalism, societies intellectual progress was VERY slow because there werent enough smart people who were educated enough to be productive in advancing knowledge.

I'm not suggesting that no one should get an education, especially if they are capable. If you are unwillingly to pay for something yourself (and you could afford it), it generally means you do not value it at the price it is being sold it. If I offer you a $300 vase that you would not buy for $300 for free you would probably take it. However, this is wasteful because the value of the vase is $300, and I paid $300 for it (because there is no free lunch), but you do not value it at $300. Higher education works in a similar fashion, you might not be willingly to pay the full cost of it yourself, but if you get the government to pay for it, waste is created in a way. Secondly, if more and more people get a college degree, the value of my college degree falls (since it is more common to have), so I now have to get a Master's degree to distinguish myself and to show I really do value education since I went through all this extra effort.

Well, there is also the Flynn Effect which contributes much to recent growth. That and the fact that most of those ancient systems had very flawed economic systems (such as mercantilism or Feudalism).



Correct, I would say inequality is not a bad thing (although, its debatable on the natural part). I have no problem if genetic engineering makes people more intelligent and good looking. The rich would probably be able to afford it at first, but the price would likely fall over time. The "privileged" by and large in today's society did not get to where they are by pure chance; the number of blueblood rich are fairly small compared to the rest. Bill Gates became the richest man in the world on his own, he was not born into being the richest, the same goes for Warren Buffet, and that Ikea guy, Ingvar Kamprad. As I recall, one of America's top neurosurgeons, Benjamin Carson become a doctor on his own merit and hailed from a poor, black family in the "ghettos". If you have the ability, you can succeed in this country (and the Middle Class in America is pretty good, so what if the "rich" make 3x as much as you?).

Last edited by Sargon on 25 May 2008, 2:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.