"Maths, in university, is useless bull..."

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Agathon
No it won't. You need to read some economics books.

Look up "market failures". This should interest you, since the internet has brought with it a whole new bunch of market failures.

Look up "externalities" - you will understand why people can quite naturally engage in collectively destructive activities like polluting, or fail to engage sufficiently in mutually beneficial activities like education.

Look up "perverse outcomes" and "collective action problems" as well.

Until you understand these things, you cannot understand why we have a mixed economy and why some demands may go unsatisfied if everyone acts according to rational market behaviour.

I'm not ****ting you, it's the truth. People on both the extreme left and right fail to understand these things and their applicability to our current economy. It's a shame, because it would stop a lot of pointless *****ing.

Very true However what is a market failure is open to debate. Something has to provide a public benefit for it to deserve a subsidy. If it is correctly provided, then it is not a market failure. I'm sure some people believe philosophy is correctly provided by private funding only.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Which has nothing to do, of course, with market failures, externalities and public goods . How do you deal with those issues in your 'necessary services with minimal waste' government? And you can't just wish it away. Liberal Arts in universities is indeed like the police (for instance) in that people want it and the market cannot provide it, at least not with any degree of efficiency, that would suffice the total demand (private universities would be able to cover partial demand at the upper end of the price scale, but at the lower end of the price scale it wouldn't), which people see as necessary.

That is obviously true, but using the economic definition of 'want', which is closer to 'is prepared to pay for'. Liberal Arts universities, like all education and the police, have to provide a public benefit in order to be a market failure without the subsidy. Looking at salaries for graduates, science pays back it's subsidy in higher taxes paid, whereas arts does not to the same degree. Thus, it needs to show another public good to justify government subsidy. We could say that paragliding should be funded by the government, for anybody that wants too, but there isn't a public benefit for that big enough to justify the expenditure. Some people would say there isn't a big enough public benefit to justify the expenditure on philosophy either.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Agathon
Asher, I recommend this book to you.

http://www.amazon.ca/exec/obidos/ASIN/0140292489/qid=1095748238/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl/702-3277861-5178406

Yes, it is by a philosopher, but it's really a basic introduction to the economic things Imran and I are talking about. It's a very easy read and explains it well enough for anyone to get the general point.

Definately something I'll be reading if I can find it in the UK.

That and Happiness Economics I somehow feel are going to mean I don't end up doing enough of my reading list... Oh well!

[Agathon]

have to provide a public benefit in order to be a market failure without the subsidy

I don't agree. It merely has to satisfy a need that the market can't. There is no need for paragliding to be funded by the government as the market seems to do a pretty good job at that.

On the other hand, even hard conservatives agree that the Liberal Arts are a public good.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Wrong. They are correlative statements pitted against a certain conception of what is good, wishable, etc.

Wrong. They can be completely seperate from morality.

For instance, I can say that that car is worth $20,000. I'm valuing it in terms of something else. It's not a moral judgement, but it is a value judgement.

Of course, you're going to come back with something like "but I was talking about judgements of moral value"

Then there is no point in discussing personal tastes.

There's plenty of reason to do so. For instance, if I know a girl is a lesbian, I wouldn't hit on her.

Imran comes to mind, but many people who fancy themselves as relativists do it.

Oh, and Hume is not a relativist!!!

When did I say he is?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Agathon
Principia Mathematica by Russell and Whitehead.

I think you have your authors mixed up and subject fields...

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Agathon
Now, you name me five people who have a CS degree who have had more influence on the world than all of the people in that list.

Well, Gates technically doesn't have a CS degree...

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Agathon
I don't agree. It merely has to satisfy a need that the market can't. There is no need for paragliding to be funded by the government as the market seems to do a pretty good job at that.

Says who? I think there's not enough paragliding, and it's under supplied by the market. That's a spurious argument, since there is a definition of what is or isn't under supplied.

Market failure is about private costs/beneits vs public costs benefits. The core, the bit of what is under supplied and what isn't, is what has more benefit than simply the private, as opposed to the cost. For example, healthcare has the extra benefit of working hours and less contagious disease, as well as the privat benefit when someone is cured, hence it is under supplied by the market. Pollution has the opposite, where society pays costs as well as the individual who pollutes, hence pollution is over supplied by the market. That is what market failure is. Thus liberal arts does need to have a benefit to soceity beyond the individual to justify that it is under supplied, and thus the subject of market failure.

Originally posted by Agathon
On the other hand, even hard conservatives agree that the Liberal Arts are a public good.

They may do, but that doesn't mean Asher does. Hence to him it's not under supplied, and thus not an example of market failure. If you mean what society thinks, then since it is subsidised, it obviously thinks there are benefits. However even with Asher understanding market failure, since he believe it not to have an extra public benefit beyond the individual, it is not a market failure to him. Telling him he doesn't understand market failure isn't arguing against his position, that philosophy doesn't have enough of a public good to justify government spending, especially compared to the sciences.

[Jon Miller]

lack of taxation is not the same as public money

lack of taxation is a result of religion not being a business, it is not trying to make money

religions (or at least the ones who should receive notax status) provide a free service, and generall provide other charities as well

this is why religion should be, and is, classified as a charity (in general)

if you beleive that religions should be taxed, than the logical result is that all charities should be taxed, and I at least think that that is obviously stupid

Jon Miller
(if the religion requires money, or does not undertake many charity operations, than it should lose the tax status)

[Agathon]

Says who? I think there's not enough paragliding, and it's under supplied by the market. That's a spurious argument, since there is a definition of what is or isn't under supplied.

Then you can spend your money on paragliding. Then more people will set up paragliding businesses.

The difference with things like philosophy is that they can't survive in any worthwhile form without public funding.

They may do, but that doesn't mean Asher does.

I couldn't care less what he thinks. Most people don't understand half the stuff that goes on at university. They simply are not competent to judge.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
No it won't. You need to read some economics books.

Look up "market failures". This should interest you, since the internet has brought with it a whole new bunch of market failures.

Look up "externalities" - you will understand why people can quite naturally engage in collectively destructive activities like polluting, or fail to engage sufficiently in mutually beneficial activities like education.

Look up "perverse outcomes" and "collective action problems" as well.

Until you understand these things, you cannot understand why we have a mixed economy and why some demands may go unsatisfied if everyone acts according to rational market behaviour.

I'm not ****ting you, it's the truth. People on both the extreme left and right fail to understand these things and their applicability to our current economy. It's a shame, because it would stop a lot of pointless *****ing.

Great post, thanks for the basic information I got in the intro to economics classes.

However, my point is (and still is), religion and the lack of philosophy is not a market failure. Hell, many private universities offer philosophy courses. You'd likely have a helluva lot more once it's no longer publically taught. And if philosophy is as important as you say it is, I don't see why it'd have any problem with private instruction.

Why don't you quit skirting around that and deal with it, instead of the usual smoke and mirrors with strawmen?

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Agathon
Then you can spend your money on paragliding. Then more people will set up paragliding businesses.

The difference with things like philosophy is that they can't survive in any worthwhile form without public funding.

Then some would say that isn't market failure, but it's correct provision. The same debate that happens with keeping old buildings open to the public. If they can't survive on their own, should they be subsidised, or is that the proper provision.

Originally posted by Agathon
I couldn't care less what he thinks. Most people don't understand half the stuff that goes on at university. They simply are not competent to judge.

While that is true, by the nature of democracy, all people judge and decide. If you ask each faculty to say if they should be given public money they'd all say yes, thus something objective, the government, decides what is the proper provision, and by extension, the public do, through voting. The only people that do know what exactly goes on are biased towards that field. The only solution I can think is that each faculty justifies it's public money, as any organisation that receives it does.

What I mean is that it isn't necessarily a market failure, the lack of a provision of something. Some people may lack illegal drugs, but that isn't a market failure. Philosophy departments may or may not be, depending on what peoples opinion is. Since they are subsidised, it's obvious the government thinks they would be under provided.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Asher
However, my point is (and still is), religion and the lack of philosophy is not a market failure. Hell, many private universities offer philosophy courses. You'd likely have a helluva lot more once it's no longer publically taught. And if philosophy is as important as you say it is, I don't see why it'd have any problem with private instruction.

Because it would then be the plaything of the rich. Anyone who wanted to study it would have to pay all their fees (remember even at private universities, few pay full fees), thus meaning only the rich could afford to do it, especially with less economically good prospects afterwards. Moreover, many believe that philosophy does benefit society, through increased understanding of things, for the way people learn. Most maths grads don't use their maths afterwards, but the style of working they learned. Likewise with philosophy. Some of the best teachers I know did philosophy, and it shows in the style they teach and the way they approach issues and problems. To many people, there is a public benefit of philosophy departments, hence the subsidies. You could ask why literature or history departments should be subsidised too. Generally they provide a benefit to society, in most people's opinions, and thus get subsidised.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Drogue
Because it would then be the plaything of the rich. Anyone who wanted to study it would have to pay all their fees (remember even at private universities, few pay full fees), thus meaning only the rich could afford to do it, especially with less economically good prospects afterwards.

There's the point again -- why are their economic prospects not so good after they're done? If it was truly beneficial, would this not reflect in their salaries afterwards?

[Cruddy]

Re: "Maths, in university, is useless bull..."

Originally posted by Asher
A quote from a prominent forum personality.

Discuss...

Nah. It's mostly useless bull... but you can never tell the bits you will need in later life, so there's no reall shortcut to learning the whole lot... or at least understand how to apply the principles.

Check out "Fractals Everywhere" - heavy duty maths written in a very approachable way. Of course, it was written by a Brit...