English as a First Language? Don't Learn Another Language Then.

[Solly]

Well you can always save up capital by living with your parents until you are thirty.

[JimmyCracksCorn]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
Hmmm, property prices continually climbing above the rate of the increases in wage rates, making it nigh on impossible for people to secure a mortgage. Limited security meaning people can't feasibly make long term investments like this. That is what I mean.

Now you just need to live in the real world a bit more to find out what it is really like...

All of which are the effect of governments getting involved in the market through means such as trade unions and other sorts of intervention. Whenever measures are taken to "even the playing field" it just makes things less competitive and you and I pay for it.

Although all in all the employment situation in most anglo countries (not being enthnocentric) is very good.

At least thats what I think.

[Thrawn05]

Originally posted by St Leo
You should learn Latin in school if only just to understand English grammar better. I didn't understand the who/whom distinction until I learned some Latin.

And to boot, it's a universal language!

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by JimmyCracksCorn


All of which are the effect of governments getting involved in the market through means such as trade unions and other sorts of intervention. Whenever measures are taken to "even the playing field" it just makes things less competitive and you and I pay for it.

Although all in all the employment situation in most anglo countries (not being enthnocentric) is very good.

At least thats what I think.

Governments getting involved in the market through trade unions? Trade unions are not a part of the government But I suppose it is against the capitalist view of 'divide and conquer' their market. See, economics isn't as simple as throw everything together and they'll work it out, as society as a whole needs to function for the wellbeing of the people. Solidarity, that is what is needed.

And Stew, as you are well aware, I am actively seeking other work. My current income does not afford me enough money to live by myself and have any standard of living, and isn't it so easy to find a decent job in this so-called 'buoyant graduate job market'

[JimmyCracksCorn]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison


Governments getting involved in the market through trade unions? Trade unions are not a part of the government But I suppose it is against the capitalist view of 'divide and conquer' their market. See, economics isn't as simple as throw everything together and they'll work it out, as society as a whole needs to function for the wellbeing of the people. Solidarity, that is what is needed.

And Stew, as you are well aware, I am actively seeking other work. My current income does not afford me enough money to live by myself and have any standard of living, and isn't it so easy to find a decent job in this so-called 'buoyant graduate job market'

True, but they have to be government sanctioned to do any good, and they end up serving the same purpose anyways, which is to restrict companies from being as competitve as they can be.

And I know economics isn't simple... I'm an economics major I used to be left wing like you, but once you start really looking and learning about how markets work, you realize that the right... is right. It just works better. Maximum levels of competition means a higher quality of life for all in the long run. History has demonstrated that.

Almost invariably you'll see that those countries with the least amount of government intervention (which I lump with ridiculous union standards... although some unions are good) will have the highest quality of life (which includes low unemployement and high wages and consumer choice) while more socialistic countries the quality of life for the average person declines.

Keep in mind I'm just pulling most of this off the top of my head, I'm not writing an essay.

[JimmyCracksCorn]

And I come from Canada too, so I have a unique view of these kinds of things.

Canada and the USA are basically the same country, with a few differences... mainly, the Canadian government is much more involved in the economy with taxes and laws, etc...

You can really see the effects of this when you cross the border... the US has an infinitely more competitive market place than Canada, even when you take into account the population difference. Every Canadian business is owned by Hudson's Bay it seems, and the ones that aren't, are owned by American companies. Why? You tell me... We suffer for it too with higher prices, lower wages, higher taxes... and generally a lower overall quality of life and less opportunity.

All just MHO of course.

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by JimmyCracksCorn
True, but they have to be government sanctioned to do any good, and they end up serving the same purpose anyways, which is to restrict companies from being as competitve as they can be.

And I know economics isn't simple... I'm an economics major I used to be left wing like you, but once you start really looking and learning about how markets work, you realize that the right... is right. It just works better. Maximum levels of competition means a higher quality of life for all in the long run. History has demonstrated that.

Almost invariably you'll see that those countries with the least amount of government intervention (which I lump with ridiculous union standards... although some unions are good) will have the highest quality of life (which includes low unemployement and high wages and consumer choice) while more socialistic countries the quality of life for the average person declines.

Like Scandinavia?

[JimmyCracksCorn]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison


Like Scandinavia?

But their standard of living is kept high through excessive taxes and an extensive welfare benefits. Its like the whole country is living with their parents.

Plus, dealing with a small homogenous population is a little different than dealing with larger, more heterogenous ones like britain, canada and the US

[Odin]

I have an idea, lets use LATIN as the universal language, that avoids the nationocentric problems, since latin is a dead language. LATIN IS BAAAAAACK!

[MRT144]

i wish i could live a life where it would be like living with my parents but the ability to smoke weed occasionally and not have to show them fake respect.

[Seneca]

Originally posted by St Leo
You should learn Latin in school if only just to understand English grammar better. I didn't understand the who/whom distinction until I learned some Latin.

You don't need to - it's obsolescent.

[Drogue]

I agree with Boddingtons point about one language, it would make things a lot simpler. Especially for the EU. We now have virtually free travel, a single currency, why not a single language? The problem is, why should it be English? I think the disasterous effect it would have on this generation, that do not speak English, would be enormous. I can imagine what it would be like if I had to speak French or German. I might get by, but I could never express myself like I can in my mother tongue.

How would it be enforced? With strict laws on what you can or can't speak? They tried that with weights and measures (from imperial to metric) and people still use imperial. Laws sem a little drastic, yet I don't see another way to do it?

A single language makes sense in the long term, but would be terrible in the short term, as people have to adjust.

[JimmyCracksCorn]

A single language makes sense in the long term, but would be terrible in the short term, as people have to adjust.

Thats why we need to work towards one slowly, which we already are. I would imagine that the amount of English speakers in the world increases expotentially every decade or so (although I have no stats to back this up).

Of course there are other languages like Chinese which I'm sure are growing too, but poor peasants don't really count.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Like Scandinavia?

Since Sweden went from highly capitalist to more socialist their GDP growth has fallen, PH.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by JimmyCracksCorn
Of course there are other languages like Chinese which I'm sure are growing too, but poor peasants don't really count.

Why the hell not?! Why do peasants not count? It's a bit of a sweeping generalisation to say that China is full of peasants. Especially considering it's one of the worlds economicall fastest growing nations. And more people speak Madarin than English IIRC, so it seems foolish to discount it.