# Reading > General Literature >  Oxford vs Cambridge

## WICKES

I need you to settle something for me. I was having a stupid argument today about which university was more famous for literature, Oxford or Cambridge. I argued it was Oxford and that Cambridge was more famous for science (Isaac Newton went there, so did Charles Darwin and Stephen Hawking- it is also where DNA was discovered). Here are the great literary Cambridge graduates:


John Milton 
Siegfried Sassoon
Christopher Marlowe
Coleridge
Laurence Sterne
Rupert Brooke
Salman Rushdie
Sylvia Plath
A S Byatt
Margaret Drabble
Edmund Spenser
Thomas Gray
Ted Hughes
Byron
J B Priestly


For Oxford:

Aldous Huxley
Philip Larkin
Shelley
TE Lawrence
Betjamen
C S Lewis
JRR Tolkein
T S Eliot
Iris Murdoch
Robert Graves
AE Housman
Jonathan Swift
Kingsley Amis
Oscar Wilde
Thomas De Quincey
Graham Greene
William Golding
John Ruskin
Philip Sidney
Lewis Caroll
W H Auden
Vikram Seth
Evelyn Waugh
John Donne

----------


## mono

Some debate between the two, other join them, nearly calling the two universities synonymous as "Oxbridge." Technically, Oxford has existed _a lot_ longer, perhaps giving it more time to seem more prominent, but Cambridge has created itself a large name these centuries; oddly enough, many of the first Cambridge University students attended Oxford first, but wanted to escape its allegedly "harsh" environment - even more odd, many of the same things occurred between Oxford and the University of Paris. While Oxford seems a place to escape from, Cambridge has encountered a number of blows for educating spies.
A lot of the debate seems similar to the incessant war between Harvard and Yale Universities, and, for the most part, useless. Two universities competing for students seems much like two hospitals competing for the commission of admitting ill patients; both the graduates and patients will likely get similar treatment, but their allegedly educated and/or cured prides will not allow a moment's respect for its opposition.
A few other Oxford University grads I did not see listed: Theodor Geisel ("Dr. Seuss"), Robert Southey, Matthew Arnold, Robert Graves.
More from Cambridge University: Lord Alfred Tennyson, Andrew Marvell, William Wordsworth, William Makepeace Thackeray, A.A. Milne, E.M. Forster, J.G. Ballard, Leonard Woolf, Harold Bloom, Clive Bell, Alain de Botton.

----------


## prendrelemick

I think you are right Wickes. the _perception_ of Oxford,is that is a place of dreaming spires, slightly aloof from the real world. Cambridge is your more pragmatic, buisness like upstart.

----------


## stlukesguild

Of course it would seem that with Milton, Wordsworth, Tennyson and Spenser alone, Cambridge has the edge.

----------


## Petrarch's Love

A pretty tough choice, since neither institution is exactly a slouch in terms of literary reputation. Normally my Spenserian tendencies would make me lean toward Cambridge, but given that I've just received an e-mail from a kindly Bodleian librarian allowing me to do research for a month in the fall ( :Banana: ), I'm going to have to go with Oxford.  :Wink: . Definitely Oxford has the better early collections for literary research.

----------


## meh!

In reference to a post earlier:

Oxford and Cambridge have the exact same reputation of being filled with private school wanks and posh kids - no one who doesn't go to one of them thinks of either of them as 'more pragmatic' than the other.

No offense if you went to a private school.

----------


## MarkBastable

> I think you are right Wickes. the _perception_ of Oxford,is that is a place of dreaming spires, slightly aloof from the real world. Cambridge is your more pragmatic, buisness like upstart.


_Aspiring dreams_, then.




(No, it's not my gag. But it's satisfying, even as a steal.)

----------


## WICKES

> In reference to a post earlier:
> 
> Oxford and Cambridge have the exact same reputation of being filled with private school wanks and posh kids - no one who doesn't go to one of them thinks of either of them as 'more pragmatic' than the other.
> 
> No offense if you went to a private school.


I don't think that's true anymore. For a long time you could pay to go to Oxford or Cambridge, now it is all about ability and qualifications. They probably do have more than their fair share of public school twats but at least they now have to be *clever* public school twats. It's a shame they still have that reputation, it puts off exceptionally bright kids from ordinary backgrounds. I knew a guy from a Glasgow council estate at my University who had 4 A's at A-level. He didn't apply for Oxford or Cambridge because he thought they'd be full of posh idiots- what a waste! It also put him off places like St Andrews and Sheffield, which also have that reputation.

I went to a crappy comprehensive and then a very good 6th form college which was full of public school types. To be fair, most were really nice and felt kind of embarassed about their privileged background. It's not their fault (some were vile of course- but they were often divs who dropped out and went to work for their dad). The British class system is collapsing and has been for the last 30 years- I really think you'd be surprised if you went to Oxford or Cambridge today.

----------


## Paulclem

It's certainly receding, but unfortunately there are still bastions. 

I was in the Officer training Cops in Newcastle - a kind of Student TA. One fine public school chappie asked me what result I had just got from my uni course. I told him, and he went on and on about how I - I'm from a council estate in Yorkshire and really played up to the part - couldn't possibly have got that. He went on and on about being cultured and blue blood etc. I would have decked him if he hadn't been such a laughable idiot.

Unfortunately I still see snippets of this attitude - most recently when Harry was censured for his racist use of names, and it transpired that a black fellow in Charles inner circle he referred to as Sooty. Disgraceful

----------


## Hank Stamper

> I don't think that's true anymore. For a long time you could pay to go to Oxford or Cambridge, now it is all about ability and qualifications. They probably do have more than their fair share of public school twats but at least they now have to be *clever* public school twats. It's a shame they still have that reputation, it puts off exceptionally bright kids from ordinary backgrounds. I knew a guy from a Glasgow council estate at my University who had 4 A's at A-level. He didn't apply for Oxford or Cambridge because he thought they'd be full of posh idiots- what a waste! It also put him off places like St Andrews and Sheffield, which also have that reputation.
> 
> I went to a crappy comprehensive and then a very good 6th form college which was full of public school types. To be fair, most were really nice and felt kind of embarassed about their privileged background. It's not their fault (some were vile of course- but they were often divs who dropped out and went to work for their dad). The British class system is collapsing and has been for the last 30 years- I really think you'd be surprised if you went to Oxford or Cambridge today.


It is supposed to be about ability and qualifications, but Oxbridge entrants are still weighted unfairly in favour of those with public school backgrounds.. I was doing some vox pops at UCL a few months ago when there was talk of vice-chancellors upping tuition fees, and the number of students who just shrugged their shoulders and said it would make little difference because their parents bankrolled their studies anyway was quite shocking (well, probably not that shocking!) .. to me that suggests that it is still the super privileged who in the majority enjoy the best university educations ... the British class system is not collapsing (sadly) - the gulf now between the rich and the poor is the biggest it has been in years, and the elitism that is a product of that disparity is as prevalent as ever in the world of education and the professions (see Alan Milburn's recent report).. i think maybe there is an illusion that the class system has been eroded by a growing middle class, for whom the class system does not seem to exist in every day life (they have money to spend, cars, houses etc - mostly on credit!).. but now that the credit bubble has burst, class anxiety will almost certainly return.. hmmm. that is a bit off topic! who has the best literary reputation? i'm going for oxford - but only because i live nearer to oxford than cambridge

----------


## Whifflingpin

"The British class system is collapsing and has been for the last 30 years-"

You missed off a zero - "The British class system is collapsing and has been for the last 300 years-"

"Cambridge is your more pragmatic, business like upstart."
At 800 years old this year, that's quite a reputation to have.

----------


## prendrelemick

> I don't think that's true anymore. For a long time you could pay to go to Oxford or Cambridge, now it is all about ability and qualifications. They probably do have more than their fair share of public school twats but at least they now have to be *clever* public school twats. It's a shame they still have that reputation, it puts off exceptionally bright kids from ordinary backgrounds. I knew a guy from a Glasgow council estate at my University who had 4 A's at A-level. He didn't apply for Oxford or Cambridge because he thought they'd be full of posh idiots- what a waste! It also put him off places like St Andrews and Sheffield, which also have that reputation.
> 
> I went to a crappy comprehensive and then a very good 6th form college which was full of public school types. To be fair, most were really nice and felt kind of embarassed about their privileged background. It's not their fault (some were vile of course- but they were often divs who dropped out and went to work for their dad). The British class system is collapsing and has been for the last 30 years- I really think you'd be surprised if you went to Oxford or Cambridge today.


Sheffield!!?? Durham perhaps.

----------


## meh!

> I don't think that's true anymore. For a long time you could pay to go to Oxford or Cambridge, now it is all about ability and qualifications. They probably do have more than their fair share of public school twats but at least they now have to be *clever* public school twats. It's a shame they still have that reputation, it puts off exceptionally bright kids from ordinary backgrounds. I knew a guy from a Glasgow council estate at my University who had 4 A's at A-level. He didn't apply for Oxford or Cambridge because he thought they'd be full of posh idiots- what a waste! It also put him off places like St Andrews and Sheffield, which also have that reputation.
> 
> I went to a crappy comprehensive and then a very good 6th form college which was full of public school types. To be fair, most were really nice and felt kind of embarassed about their privileged background. It's not their fault (some were vile of course- but they were often divs who dropped out and went to work for their dad). The British class system is collapsing and has been for the last 30 years- I really think you'd be surprised if you went to Oxford or Cambridge today.


The class system is not collapsing, and can't in this regard whilst we still have all these private schools. There are more private school children in Oxbridge because private schools are often better, and even if they're not they prep children for these kind of universities. Oxford and Cambridge have far too many private school kids. They accept them on ability (though the fact that there are interviews worries me in that regard) but those with the best abilities, specifically those with the best interviewing abilities, confidence, and the right upbringing come in great swathes from private schools. 

This is getting a bit political, but the idea that class is collapsing isn't true. It's partly true to suggest the old type of specifically British classes are dying a little, but economic class is a greater divider than ever and that's evident in the number of private school children that attend the best universities. Buying a better education is wrong, and Oxbridge represent all of that.

Sorry, ranting now.

----------


## WICKES

> . There are more private school children in Oxbridge because private schools are often better, and even if they're not they prep children for these kind of universities. Oxford and Cambridge have far too many private school kids. .


Yes, I have to agree. I'm a bit suspicious of positive discrimination though- it's a tough one. You'd just end up with very bright kids from private schools not getting a chance because there are quotas to fill. You can't blame parents for not sending their kids to state schools. I went to a comprehensive in Essex and it was useless- if I could afford it I would send my kids private (purely for the better education, not to turn them into little snobs- my ancestors were working class socialists). The answer is to improve state schools by opening more special schools for the disruptive kids who ruin the education of so many children at comprehensives. Or to cream off the exceptionally bright kids from the state schools and put them in something like a grammar school (then you make the other 90% feel like failures of course  :Brickwall: ). 

I do think you'd be surprised if you went to Oxford or Cambridge though- I don't think there's quite the snobbish, elitist atmosphere you assume there is.

----------


## JBI

Eliot went to Harvard, not Oxford. He was only there for a little while when the First World War cut his plans to study at Sorbonne for his Ph. D. in philosophy in half. Either way, Bologna with Dante and Petrarch wins hands down anyway, even if none of the others there are counted.

----------


## wessexgirl

> Eliot went to Harvard, not Oxford. He was only there for a little while when the First World War cut his plans to study at Sorbonne for his Ph. D. in philosophy in half. *Either way, Bologna with Dante and Petrarch wins hands down anyway, even if none of the others there are counted.*


If we're going OT from Oxbridge literary greats JBI, then the greatest writer wasn't even university educated. I'm sure we all know who I mean.

----------


## JBI

> If we're going OT from Oxbridge literary greats JBI, then the greatest writer wasn't even university educated. I'm sure we all know who I mean.


You are right, Leopardi was home schooled, and then went on to teach himself everything else.

On that note, I personally would say the greatest writer wasn't who you were thinking, but, in order not to destroy this topic, it is fair enough to say we are valuing institutions here, so those who didn't get into them are to be ignored, in which case, I'd probably say Cambridge wins in terms of having great writers, whereas Oxford wins in terms of having better research and criticism, something which has already been, more eloquently, stated by Petrarch's Love. 

It's strange though, this sort of comparison - if we, for instance, look at different systems of education, and how they reflect upon the writers, we see very strange things - I mean, how many writers were brought up, for instance, to write the Chinese Imperial Examinations, and how did that effect their modes of writing - then we say, how many were brought up to study in Oxbridge, and how did that effect their learning, and how did that favor classicism, or, you could say, how many were brought up to study in Italian institutions, and brought up studying classics and religious texts, and how did that effect their work.

Can we say then, in a sense, the association of institution or educational system has a profound impact on the way we see our literature, in the sense that, we could say, our obsession with classics is built upon the institutions obsession with classics, and that having been ingrained into the whole tradition of writers from Aeschylus down, or the whole tradition of Chinese writing being so thoroughly rooted in Confucianism, as to make the Chinese aesthetic and consciousness shaped around that one school of thought?

Couldn't we then say, that something like philosophy, as a subject, is built around one academic thought, and that discipline, in a sense, only exists because of the value put on the thoughts by the institution, and then the tradition - so, Aristotle, for instance, is highly regarded as a thinker, because of the value Hellenistic thinkers put on his work, which subsequently made his categories, rather than LaoZi's Dao De Ching the source for understanding things philosophically - so instead of breaking down categories, as is the Daost principle, and destroying names, we instead, because of the acceptance by the schools in Athens and Alexandria, name everything, and categorize it.

Is it too far a stretch though, to say that our very language is rooted in that sort of mold though - I mean, there certainly is a strong pulling toward Latinate words in the renaissance (In England) over Germanic ones, with Latin being absorbed faster and faster into the language and I guess the obsession with them intensified even more during the 18th century. 


Now, how does this relate - well, how much of our conception of English literature is built upon which institution? How does The Oxford experience create the writer, and the tradition, verses The Cambridge Experience? Certainly, for instance, The University of Toronto experience would greatly differ, in terms of stylistic development, from the Columbia University experience, which is probably different than the Harvard University Experience, or the Yale university experience - how much of that changes the author, and how do these schools promote, and change how we see text?

----------


## meh!

> Yes, I have to agree. I'm a bit suspicious of positive discrimination though- it's a tough one. You'd just end up with very bright kids from private schools not getting a chance because there are quotas to fill. You can't blame parents for not sending their kids to state schools. I went to a comprehensive in Essex and it was useless- if I could afford it I would send my kids private (purely for the better education, not to turn them into little snobs- my ancestors were working class socialists). The answer is to improve state schools by opening more special schools for the disruptive kids who ruin the education of so many children at comprehensives. Or to cream off the exceptionally bright kids from the state schools and put them in something like a grammar school (then you make the other 90% feel like failures of course ). 
> 
> I do think you'd be surprised if you went to Oxford or Cambridge though- I don't think there's quite the snobbish, elitist atmosphere you assume there is.


Improve state schools, ban private schools (it's a ****ing disgrace that they have charity status), stop trying to bring in tuition fees for university (and in England, stop increasing those that are already in place).

----------


## stlukesguild

Improve state schools, ban private schools (it's a ****ing disgrace that they have charity status), stop trying to bring in tuition fees for university...

And how do you plan on paying for that all? You ban private schools and the wealthy will return to the days of hiring private tutors. Wealth will always give an advantage. Is it fair? No. But one of the lessons you need to learn real early is that life is not fair... and it is far from egalitarian.

----------


## stlukesguild

Either way, Bologna with Dante and Petrarch wins hands down anyway, even if none of the others there are counted. 

JBI... as much as I admire Dante I somehow think the combined output of Milton, Spenser, Tennyson, Wordsworth, etc... surpasses Bologna's Dante and Petrarch.

----------


## JBI

> Either way, Bologna with Dante and Petrarch wins hands down anyway, even if none of the others there are counted. 
> 
> JBI... as much as I admire Dante I somehow think the combined output of Milton, Spenser, Tennyson, Wordsworth, etc... surpasses Bologna's Dante and Petrarch.


Arguably, though Goldoni, Pascoli, Carducci, Eco and Pasolini must count for something at any rate.

----------


## meh!

> Improve state schools, ban private schools (it's a ****ing disgrace that they have charity status), stop trying to bring in tuition fees for university...
> 
> And how do you plan on paying for that all? You ban private schools and the wealthy will return to the days of hiring private tutors. Wealth will always give an advantage. Is it fair? No. But one of the lessons you need to learn real early is that life is not fair... and it is far from egalitarian.



Raise taxes, actually tax rich people at all, reallocate funds from other projects like the renewal of trident etc.

One of the lessons is that life is not fair but it can be made fairer. It is wrong that 7% of English school children (couldn't find a stat for Scotland, it's probably lower though, there are only about 15) go to private schools and 45% of Oxford undergrads come from Private schools. State-educating that 7% (and whatever it is here, wales and Ireland) would be expensive, but not as expensive as it could be considering that the buildings are already there and much of the equipment and teachers would stay. Not to mention it's a priority our society should have. And who knows what the gains will be when the people that run the country and the people that write the newspapers' children have to go to the schools they create?

Only the truly rich will hire personal tutors and the truly rich are already crooks anyway.
Mild fatalism is all very well and good, but is meaningless in the end.

EDIT: Christ almighty, it's half four in the morning. I must away to bed!

----------


## stlukesguild

On that note, I personally would say the greatest writer wasn't who you were thinking...

So who would it be, JBI... and don't say Leopardi because that is beyond laughable. I doubt even any Italians think as highly of him. As for the Chinese or other non-Western writers... well neither you nor I can begin to read enough of them to offer anything approaching a valid judgment. 

Personally the whole argument reminds me of a question raised by Emerson as to whether one would wish to live in a culture at its peak and heading into decline... or a young, expanding culture with a great future ahead. The question is intriguing... but the point clearly is that the individual must make his or her own mark. Having studied at Oxford where Milton and Spenser went before may be great... but do we believe that Oxford is going to continue turning out tomorrow's Milton's and Spensers? In my own discipline the École des Beaux-Arts, Paris, the Royal Academy, London, Akademie der bildenden Künste Wien, and the Scuole Grandi, Venice have grand histories... but they have not turned out a single major artist in the last 100 years. Yes, I'll admit that I'm an elitist. I have little use for egalitarianism in politics and even less in culture. But I believe in the notion of the self-made individual. I've always admired Picasso's theory that great art was created in much the same way as the aristocrats created their heirs: a merger of the aristocratic and the peasant stock. I have long been cognizant of the fact that a great part of the conspiracy ideas behind Shakespeare lies with the inability to accept the notion that an artist of such undeniable genius did not come from the upper classes or have the advantages of the best schooling.

----------


## stlukesguild

Raise taxes, actually tax rich people at all, reallocate funds from other projects like the renewal of trident etc.

One of the lessons is that life is not fair but it can be made fairer. It is wrong that 7% of English school children (couldn't find a stat for Scotland, it's probably lower though, there are only about 15) go to private schools and 45% of Oxford undergrads come from Private schools. State-educating that 7% (and whatever it is here, wales and Ireland) would be expensive, but not as expensive as it could be considering that the buildings are already there and much of the equipment and teachers would stay. Not to mention it's a priority our society should have.

Mild fatalism is all very well and good, but is meaningless in the end. 

Tax the rich? An easy solution... but what is the reason afforded to those in power to surrender their advantages? What is the advantage to the nation as a whole? Do you honestly believe that everyone has the ability and is worth the investment of an advanced public education? Or do we raise up the worst schools at the expense of the best with the notion of coming to some median range... the lowest common denominator? Again... if I have the wealth... why would I think of surrendering my advantage? I ask this as a public school teacher who sees the absolute worst social-economic disparity imaginable.

----------


## JBI

The reason I didn't name who I think the greatest author is, is for the single purpose of not derailing this thread into a debate on that - in terms of Chinese, well, I am straining to come up with a single figure - perhaps Li Bai, or Cao Xueqin, or Wu Cheng En, or Luo Guanzhong, but no, I would probably go with Dante as "the greatest" by my estimate, but that is not worth debating here, as it is completely off topic.

----------


## JBI

> Raise taxes, actually tax rich people at all, reallocate funds from other projects like the renewal of trident etc.
> 
> One of the lessons is that life is not fair but it can be made fairer. It is wrong that 7% of English school children (couldn't find a stat for Scotland, it's probably lower though, there are only about 15) go to private schools and 45% of Oxford undergrads come from Private schools. State-educating that 7% (and whatever it is here, wales and Ireland) would be expensive, but not as expensive as it could be considering that the buildings are already there and much of the equipment and teachers would stay. Not to mention it's a priority our society should have.
> 
> Mild fatalism is all very well and good, but is meaningless in the end. 
> 
> Tax the rich? An easy solution... but what is the reason afforded to those in power to surrender their advantages? What is the advantage to the nation as a whole? Do you honestly believe that everyone has the ability and is worth the investment of an advanced public education? Or do we raise up the worst schools at the expense of the best with the notion of coming to some median range... the lowest common denominator? Again... if I have the wealth... why would I think of surrendering my advantage? I ask this as a public school teacher who sees the absolute worst social-economic disparity imaginable.


In a sense, but what about if you properly educate everyone, because, quite simply, you feel it is worth the money, which is the norm in several countries already.

Why not just offer everyone better education, and create a merit-based system. It seems to be working for Norway - there are still people who are driven, even though the highest income bracket is heavily taxed - where is the problem then?

Well, I guess I'm better off - I get my 6,000 tuition and subtract another 4 grand in grants, and then another 2 in student loans. If I was in the States, I'd probably end up having to drop 40,000 a year for the same quality of education.


I will say though, that generally the people who are doing well in my classes do not come from rich families, or private schools, but come from minority, or disadvantaged backgrounds, and are very hardworking people. I guess the public system is, to an extent, working on fixing some of the problems, though I am not American, so I can't really say anything about the climate there.

I'm of the mind that education is a human right, so, naturally, I'm against the limitation of education based on money, in any regard. Something like a Public library, for instance, is a good start, since it gives people the outlet to achieve, and I think a dominance on public schooling helps a lot. From what I know of Canada though, the bulk of private schools are for people with special needs whose parents can afford them, and not for the "chic" quality, and they amount to like 7% in the early grades, and significantly less as the grades go up, and that is generally due to religious, or as I said before, special needs, rather than because they are any "better". 


Of course, education in the states is a whole other ballgame, as it is in England, but I don't think the excuse of "the rich won't have any incentive to be rich" is a good one. Trickle-down economics, and the whole Reagan-Thatcher approach has proven to be disastrous, at any rate.

Perhaps then, if countries spent less on their military, and more on their education, than there would be nothing to complain about - as it is Americans pay higher taxes than us, and get far less, so I think it somewhat safe to say that that system isn't working to well.

You aren't holding anyone back by giving people a better education - like you said, the people in private schools are getting a better education anyway - might as well just boost the overall education of the country, if you have the funds, but I guess some countries don't, and are frivolous on some things, but stingy on others.


Who knows though - The English culture, the way I see it, seems to be built on a class system. It goes way back, and it seems more thoroughly ingrained into the consciousness than elsewhere. Likewise, the US has a sort of fascination in part with it, with universities looking if parents or relatives had attended, and so on, and people naming their kids with a Jr, or being part of Daughters of the American Revolution or whatever. That doesn't really exist here, so I don't feel right commenting on it. The actual focus on that is what is really creating the problem though - England has a long history of schools for rich kids, catering to rich needs - Milton went to one, before he would go home and get his private tutors and whatnot. There is a sort of preoccupation with that sort hammered into the culture, and I guess it hasn't faded much.

----------


## stlukesguild

In a sense, but what about if you properly educate everyone, because, quite simply, you feel it is worth the money, which is the norm in several countries already.

Why not just offer everyone better education, and create a merit-based system. It seems to be working for Norway - there are still people who are driven, even though the highest income bracket is heavily taxed - where is the problem then?

AS I stated, I work in the public schools in an urban district with disadvantages you cannot even begin to fathom. The majority of my students need to pass through gang-controlled neighborhoods and pass by prostitutes, crack heads, drug dealers, etc... each day on the way to and from school. Any number of my students have witnessed drive-by-shootings, are victims of the same, or know victims. But I am somewhat playing the devil's advocate here. Marxist-Utopian-Egalitarian ideas are all very fine... but how do we actually make them work in real life? The reality is that for anyone to invest effort beyond the bare minimum acceptable there needs to be an incentive. If I work my *** off and I find that I am so highly taxed that I am no better off than the lazy slugs who do the bare minimum and that my kids and my family see no advantage... well then it doesn't take rocket science to figure out the results. I'm going to either become a slug myself... or I'm going to move where I feel my efforts are rewarded.

Well, I guess I'm better off - I get my 6,000 tuition and subtract another 4 grand in grants, and then another 2 in student loans. If I was in the States, I'd probably end up having to drop 40,000 a year for the same quality of education.

Undoubtedly higher education in the US has become increasingly prohibitive. Too often the notion is that students will go $150,000 or $200,000 in debt recognizing that they can pay off such loans with the higher income they will earn. The reality is that this amount of money is equivalent to a decent sized home in suburbia and will take decades to repay. As a result students are forced into focusing upon careers that will result in a guaranteed high income. Majoring in English, Literature, Foreign Languages, Art, Art History, Music, Philosophy, History, etc... has become increasingly prohibitive. Unfortunately, education as a whole has never been of prime concern to the US government. This must seriously change if the US is to retain its status or anything approaching it.

I will say though, that generally the people who are doing well in my classes do not come from rich families, or private schools, but come from minority, or disadvantaged backgrounds, and are very hardworking people. I guess the public system is, to an extent, working on fixing some of the problems, though I am not American, so I can't really say anything about the climate there.

I can't suggest any stereotype as to who is or is not succeeding. Certainly there are specific cultural groups that place a very high premium upon education (Chinese, Japanese, etc...) while there is unfortunately an almost negative stereotype within the Black community (and other poor minorities) so that success within the system of education is looked down upon or seen as cow-towing to "the man". 

I'm of the mind that education is a human right, so, naturally, I'm against the limitation of education based on money, in any regard. Something like a Public library, for instance, is a good start, since it gives people the outlet to achieve, and I think a dominance on public schooling helps a lot. From what I know of Canada though, the bulk of private schools are for people with special needs whose parents can afford them, and not for the "chic" quality, and they amount to like 7% in the early grades, and significantly less as the grades go up, and that is generally due to religious, or as I said before, special needs, rather than because they are any "better".

Private schools in the US are largely far more successful than the public schools as measured by test scores, etc... due to the fact that they need not play by the same rules. The public schools cannot refuse anyone. If the student id hearing-impaired and needs a signer, they must foot the bill. If the student has behavioral issues they must deal with him or her. If the students parents are illiterate or refuse to participate in their child's education... to deal with behavior, etc... they still must be taught. The reality is that the US public schools attempt to achieve the Egalitarian ideal... but the result is that the overall quality of the schools has been dragged down and the parents with the financial means either move to the wealthy districts... or send the kids to private schools that have the option to refuse students who are extreme discipline problems, who demand expensive interventions, or whose parent are not involved and supportive. 

Of course, education in the states is a whole other ballgame, as it is in England, but I don't think the excuse of "the rich won't have any incentive to be rich" is a good one. Trickle-down economics, and the whole Reagan-Thatcher approach has proven to be disastrous, at any rate.

It is not an excuse... it is reality. Again... why should I work my *** off if the result is that you can sit on your duff and at the end of the year I and my family are no better off than yours?

Perhaps then, if countries spent less on their military, and more on their education, than there would be nothing to complain about - as it is Americans pay higher taxes than us, and get far less, so I think it somewhat safe to say that that system isn't working to well.

This, of course, is a giant problem. And it is a problem faced by the leading superpowers throughout history. You, in Canada and the Spanish, Italians, Finns, Germans, etc... depend upon American military to maintain the status-quo. Honestly... what do you believe would be the result if the United States was to suddenly decide, "F*** it! To hell with this policing the world s*** and this nonsense of Pax Americana. Lets cut our military spending by 90% and put all that money into education." ? 

You aren't holding anyone back by giving people a better education - like you said, the people in private schools are getting a better education anyway - might as well just boost the overall education of the country, if you have the funds, but I guess some countries don't, and are frivolous on some things, but stingy on others.

I agree that the minimum acceptable is not good enough in public education... but the reality is that wealth will always lead to advantages. If we were to go tomorrow to a nationalized system of public education where each and every students was afforded to same quality of learning across the nation, the wealthy would still have the option of private schools and tutors, etc... The result is that the poor must always work harder, unfair though it may be.

----------


## JBI

Um, no, look at your incarceration rate in the states - it's the highest in the world - imagine if you didn't jail so many people, and put it into something useful like healthcare and education - do you have any idea how much money that is? Clearly there is too much of a generational problem, but the whole "we spend our money to maintain your status quo" is kind of a silly argument - it isn't even true. The reason why Canada is kept safe, is because nobody is given a reason to attack Canada, except for the single reason that they think we like you guys. The reason we don't get stung is because we don't put our hand in the beehive - it has nothing to do with Americans policing the world.

----------


## mortalterror

> This, of course, is a giant problem. And it is a problem faced by the leading superpowers throughout history. You, in Canada and the Spanish, Italians, Finns, Germans, etc... depend upon American military to maintain the status-quo. Honestly... what do you believe would be the result if the United States was to suddenly decide, "F*** it! To hell with this policing the world s*** and this nonsense of Pax Americana. Lets cut our military spending by 90% and put all that money into education." ?


Agreed, we do subsidize Canadian education and health care with our military.

----------


## Paulclem

Is this the US v Canada again? I've seen ths before. And I thought you were big pals over the water...

----------


## mortalterror

> Is this the US v Canada again? I've seen ths before. And I thought you were big pals over the water...


America has no deadlier enemy than Al-Canada. If we could, we'd lop it off like a gangrenous arm. Haven't you seen that brave patriotic documentary Canadian Bacon? Our two nation's enmity has deep roots and as Herman Melville so aptly put it, "Towards thee I roll, thou all-destroying but unconquering socialist behemoth; to the last I grapple with thee; from hell’s heart I stab at thee; for hate’s sake I spit my last breath at thee. I would that my chest were a cannon, I would fire my hearts hot shell upon thee, but a moose would skate by and eat it with maple syrup."

----------


## meh!

> Raise taxes, actually tax rich people at all, reallocate funds from other projects like the renewal of trident etc.
> 
> One of the lessons is that life is not fair but it can be made fairer. It is wrong that 7% of English school children (couldn't find a stat for Scotland, it's probably lower though, there are only about 15) go to private schools and 45% of Oxford undergrads come from Private schools. State-educating that 7% (and whatever it is here, wales and Ireland) would be expensive, but not as expensive as it could be considering that the buildings are already there and much of the equipment and teachers would stay. Not to mention it's a priority our society should have.
> 
> Mild fatalism is all very well and good, but is meaningless in the end. 
> 
> Tax the rich? An easy solution... but what is the reason afforded to those in power to surrender their advantages? What is the advantage to the nation as a whole? Do you honestly believe that everyone has the ability and is worth the investment of an advanced public education? Or do we raise up the worst schools at the expense of the best with the notion of coming to some median range... the lowest common denominator? Again... if I have the wealth... why would I think of surrendering my advantage? I ask this as a public school teacher who sees the absolute worst social-economic disparity imaginable.



And easy solution and the morally and practically right one. I've no idea why you dismiss it so easily. The advantage to the nation as a whole? An educated populous, a more level playing field, the destruction of the private school old boys club.

Not everyone will go to university because it's free, because other qualifications will be free as well. What we need is more investment in apprenticeships and other skill-based non-academic work. In Scotland uni is already free and the number of people applying is dropping as other options actually become available. 

And yes, I think that everyone is worth the investment of Higher education, if they chose to take it up. Certainly I do. I can't imagine thinking anything else. Also... it's not like you suddenly get rid of entry standards...

You might surrender your advantage for the good of others, because you have to if the law is changed, etc. My father's a teacher who supports raising taxes (on him as well)

It's easy to scare people into not wanting this kind of change by suggesting that you're really just punishing the better off. No, you're asking them to pay their dues to society - the society that gave them what they have and you're helping up the unfortunate. The rich in this country get away with an absurd amount. It's worse in America. And why would the good public schools suddenly become bad? 

I tend not to argue with Americans about these kind of things because they absolutely always have different priorities, but there we are.

----------


## Paulclem

America has no deadlier enemy than Al-Canada. If we could, we'd lop it off like a gangrenous arm. Haven't you seen that brave patriotic documentary Canadian Bacon? Our two nation's enmity has deep roots and as Herman Melville so aptly put it, "Towards thee I roll, thou all-destroying but unconquering socialist behemoth; to the last I grapple with thee; from hells heart I stab at thee; for hates sake I spit my last breath at thee. I would that my chest were a cannon, I would fire my hearts hot shell upon thee, but a moose would skate by and eat it with maple syrup." 

A bit like the British and French then - come to think of it - there's the link to universal disputes - the French Canadians!!

----------


## Pryderi Agni

> America has no deadlier enemy than Al-Canada. If we could, we'd lop it off like a gangrenous arm. Haven't you seen that brave patriotic documentary Canadian Bacon? Our two nation's enmity has deep roots and as Herman Melville so aptly put it, "Towards thee I roll, thou all-destroying but unconquering socialist behemoth; to the last I grapple with thee; from hells heart I stab at thee; for hates sake I spit my last breath at thee. I would that my chest were a cannon, I would fire my hearts hot shell upon thee, but a moose would skate by and eat it with maple syrup." 
> 
> A bit like the British and French then - come to think of it - there's the link to universal disputes - the French Canadians!!


...And British Americans. That fact's pretty well-known, though it's provenance is unknown.

----------


## Paulclem

We Brits have had fights with everyone. I'm surprised anyone likes us at all. Perhaps it's because we're so polite.

----------


## stlukesguild

America has no deadlier enemy than Al-Canada. If we could, we'd lop it off like a gangrenous arm. Haven't you seen that brave patriotic documentary Canadian Bacon? Our two nation's enmity has deep roots and as Herman Melville so aptly put it, "Towards thee I roll, thou all-destroying but unconquering socialist behemoth; to the last I grapple with thee; from hells heart I stab at thee; for hates sake I spit my last breath at thee. I would that my chest were a cannon, I would fire my hearts hot shell upon thee, but a moose would skate by and eat it with maple syrup." 

 :FRlol:  :FRlol:  :FRlol:

----------


## stlukesguild

And easy solution and the morally and practically right one. I've no idea why you dismiss it so easily. The advantage to the nation as a whole? An educated populous, a more level playing field, the destruction of the private school old boys club.

You might surrender your advantage for the good of others, because you have to if the law is changed, etc. My father's a teacher who supports raising taxes (on him as well)...

I dismiss the solution because I question its economic feasibility. The willingness to work harder than others is motivated by self-interest: the desire for the rewards of wealth- a bigger house in a nice neighborhood, a nice car, the ability to travel when one wishes, the ability to give one's family and children what they need and keep them in comfort. Without this motivation there is no drive to work harder. Under a system where the wealthy are grossly taxed in order to give poor the luxury of nice homes and a college education without needing to work for it I would begin to question the purpose of investing 8-12 years in college in order to become a doctor when I could just spend the next 30 years as a full-time student studying Philosophy, Theology, Art History, etc... and allowing for the state to take care of me. I would say that under our current tax system in the US we already have a degree of animosity between the Middle Class and the Poor as many who work hard to maintain their economic situation are resentful that the Poor can churn out 6 or 7 kids (all receiving full medical coverage) and eat better than the middle class on Welfare and food stamps. With a little working here or there under the table they do better than many who work 40 hours a week. But let us face it... we cannot level the playing field because the "playing field" is life and some are simply better equipped... more intelligent... more daring... more motivated... than others.

Not everyone will go to university because it's free, because other qualifications will be free as well. What we need is more investment in apprenticeships and other skill-based non-academic work. In Scotland uni is already free and the number of people applying is dropping as other options actually become available.

And yes, I think that everyone is worth the investment of Higher education, if they chose to take it up. Certainly I do. I can't imagine thinking anything else. Also... it's not like you suddenly get rid of entry standards...

The only real standards for admission in a US school is whether you can afford to pay or not. Perhaps an exaggeration... but then I somehow doubt that exceptions are not made for those with the abilities to pay full tuition to Oxford or Cambridge or Edinburgh. 

Not too many years ago I would have questioned whether the European model was actually better than the US model. A student who was not really academically outstanding could work hard enough to earn the money in not too long a time to actually afford tuition to any American university where they might be given the second chance. Now this is not a reality. Tuition at most private colleges/universities are as large as the price of a good sized suburban home (or more) and even the state schools can be equal to the cost of a new small car. But if school acceptance is based upon entrance standards (test scores, grades, etc...) are we not just supporting another form of "elitism"... that based upon academic abilities? Are we not simply suggesting that those who do well in academia are so valuable to the state that those who do well in business or in economic terms should be expected to pay for them? 

It's easy to scare people into not wanting this kind of change by suggesting that you're really just punishing the better off. No, you're asking them to pay their dues to society - the society that gave them what they have and you're helping up the unfortunate.

Perhaps the question is "how much is enough?" Free housing, free food, free pre-natal care, free medical care... where do we draw the line? The resentment certainly exists not so much from the rich... but the Middle-Class who work hard to maintain their precarious position... to pay for food and rent and medical insurance, etc... and then they see the abuses of the Welfare state. You assume that the poor are simply "unfortunate"... and certainly there are those who have been brought to this position by the death of a husband, divorce, illness, injury, etc... At the same time there are those who are alcoholics, or drug-abusers, or simply refuse to work but know how to milk the system. My guess is that if the Welfare system were to operate as something closer to the Roosevelt-era system... where assistance was tied (with exceptions of illness, injury, physical or mental impairment, etc...) to labor of some sort (working on the highways, working in soup kitchens, assisting in the public schools, etc...) there might not be such a sense of resentment.

----------


## stlukesguild

We Brits have had fights with everyone. I'm surprised anyone likes us at all. Perhaps it's because we're so polite. 

What makes you think anyone likes you... any more than anyone likes us. :FRlol:

----------


## meh!

> [COLOR="DarkRed"]
> 
> I dismiss the solution because I question its economic feasibility. The willingness to work harder than others is motivated by self-interest: the desire for the rewards of wealth- a bigger house in a nice neighborhood, a nice car, the ability to travel when one wishes, the ability to give one's family and children what they need and keep them in comfort. Without this motivation there is no drive to work harder. Under a system where the wealthy are grossly taxed in order to give poor the luxury of nice homes and a college education without needing to work for it I would begin to question the purpose of investing 8-12 years in college in order to become a doctor when I could just spend the next 30 years as a full-time student studying Philosophy, Theology, Art History, etc... and allowing for the state to take care of me. I would say that under our current tax system in the US we already have a degree of animosity between the Middle Class and the Poor as many who work hard to maintain their economic situation are resentful that the Poor can churn out 6 or 7 kids (all receiving full medical coverage) and eat better than the middle class on Welfare and food stamps. With a little working here or there under the table they do better than many who work 40 hours a week. But let us face it... we cannot level the playing field because the "playing field" is life and some are simply better equipped... more intelligent... more daring... more motivated... than others.


It's motivated by self-interest _and other things_. It's always been false to suggest that naked self-interest is the only motivation. Less people will doctors if they pay is cut ridiculously but most will stay if the pay is cut a little because people do things for reasons other than money. Anyone suggesting that people only work for comfort is doing a great disservice to those around them, I feel. It's not what i've experienced, even from some right scum. (NB: I don't particularly think British doctors' wages should be cut, doctors are ace, though nurses aren't being paid enough)

It's not, 'grossly' it's fairly. 

Why were so many people still trying their very hardest to become a doctor (medicine, dentistry and veterinary medicine being probably the hardest to get into subjects in the country) when they can use their achievements to do actuarial maths and be on their way to a good salary much faster and with less work. Because they want to be [I]doctors[/I.

I can't attest to America's situation, but i'm the middle class here and what you're describing can simply be called a 'myth' here. 
[COLOR="DarkRed"]Not everyone will go to university because it's free, because other qualifications will be free as well. What we need is more investment in apprenticeships and other skill-based non-academic work. In Scotland uni is already free and the number of people applying is dropping as other options actually become available.

' US we already have a degree of animosity between the Middle Class and the Poor as many who work hard to maintain their economic situation are resentful that the Poor can churn out 6 or 7 kids (all receiving full medical coverage) and eat better than the middle class on Welfare and food stamps'

ie what they have has, immediately, is a problem with the image of the poor presented to them. And, perhaps, with a better welfare system (America's whole welfare system being notoriously bad) there wouldn't be so many cases to demonize the poor with. 

'But let us face it... we cannot level the playing field because the "playing field" is life and some are simply better equipped... more intelligent... more daring... more motivated... than others.'

You honestly think we can't level the playing field more than at the moment. Wow. Yes, some people are simply more intelligent, more daring etc. 

'simply better equipped' em, that's just sneaking the whole issue by. Of course they're 'simply better equipped' because they're bloody rich. 

1 in 3 British MPs come from a 7% percent pool of the population because they were more intelligent and daring? No, because we live in a fixable unequal society.




> The only real standards for admission in a US school is whether you can afford to pay or not. Perhaps an exaggeration... but then I somehow doubt that exceptions are not made for those with the abilities to pay full tuition to Oxford or Cambridge or Edinburgh.


Are we just talking about universities? There are no admission standards for normal state schools. There are for grammar schools, but there aren't very many of them here. And I really don't know about what exceptions might be made. Considering 30% of the students at my university come from the city it's in, despite growing applications from no-eu students who have to pay through the nose. 




> Not too many years ago I would have questioned whether the European model was actually better than the US model. A student who was not really academically outstanding could work hard enough to earn the money in not too long a time to actually afford tuition to any American university where they might be given the second chance. Now this is not a reality. Tuition at most private colleges/universities are as large as the price of a good sized suburban home (or more) and even the state schools can be equal to the cost of a new small car. But if school acceptance is based upon entrance standards (test scores, grades, etc...) are we not just supporting another form of "elitism"... that based upon academic abilities? Are we not simply suggesting that those who do well in academia are so valuable to the state that those who do well in business or in economic terms should be expected to pay for them?


No. People who do well in business (ie are rich) pay more taxes than everyone else because they are part of our society, they got rich of it and they can give back to it. <---- 1 issue

Society should support free education for all its citizens. < 2nd issue

There's no reason for your conflation. 

It's easy to scare people into not wanting this kind of change by suggesting that you're really just punishing the better off. No, you're asking them to pay their dues to society - the society that gave them what they have and you're helping up the unfortunate.[/QUOTE]




> [COLOR="DarkRed"]
> Perhaps the question is "how much is enough?" Free housing, free food, free pre-natal care, free medical care... where do we draw the line?


We already have free medical care (and so obviously prenatal care). For the rest of them... there is council housing and dole money etc - which basically adds up to what you're saying. Works far better than the system America is running, I think. Jeez, let's not get into a free health care debate, haha.




> [COLOR="DarkRed"]
> The resentment certainly exists not so much from the rich... but the Middle-Class who work hard to maintain their precarious position... to pay for food and rent and medical insurance, etc... and then they see the abuses of the Welfare state.


Abuses of the welfare state are hugely exaggerated here, I imagine they are in America too. (haha, it's like the 'benefit fraud' adverts we get where we're advised that benefit frauds are cheating us out of hundreds of thousands of poinds. Funnily enough, there's no advert asking us to try and find the ten richest British citizens offshore bank accounts that are costing us billions of pounds of revenue). 




> [COLOR="DarkRed"]
> You assume that the poor are simply "unfortunate"... and certainly there are those who have been brought to this position by the death of a husband, divorce, illness, injury, etc... At the same time there are those who are alcoholics, or drug-abusers, or simply refuse to work but know how to milk the system.


I don't assume anything about them particularly. Except to bear in mind that good ol' empirical tradition that tells us we are what we're made. 




> [COLOR="DarkRed"]
> My guess is that if the Welfare system were to operate as something closer to the Roosevelt-era system... where assistance was tied (with exceptions of illness, injury, physical or mental impairment, etc...) to labor of some sort (working on the highways, working in soup kitchens, assisting in the public schools, etc...) there might not be such a sense of resentment.


The problem is really not that the poor aren't working hard enough and our job isn't to cater to the middle classes sense of resentment. 

How does a person look for a job when they're working on the highways? How do they gain skills to progress in life whilst they're working on the highways?

They don't. They either sit and work on the highways or find them selves some other minwage job to do. What a bright age of social mobility we live in.

----------


## islandclimber

yes, there are many cases of people of great genius, or amazing work ethic, natural talent, etc. etc. becoming rich a la the american dream of rags to riches, but there are many more cases of people who are wealthy because wealth passes from generation to generation. And this allows the bias to continue on into education system when a nation supports vastly overfunded and superior private school education, and superior universities that are only for the rich and the very few middle class who go massively into debt to get a good degree.. and sure, again there are the rare cases of people who are geniuses and hard workers coming out of poverty and getting into these schools on scholarships but it is the rare case, definitely not the norm...

also to say that taxing the rich more would make the rich think why I am giving up my advantage, why am I paying to bring these "lazy" bums up to my standard of living? well, I don't hear anyone saying we should tax the rich so as their disposable income after tax will be the same as the average american, but someone making 100 million a year, or even 10 million a year, paying 50-75% taxes on that isn't going to hurt them too badly, except maybe instead of a 300ft yacht they'll have to settle for the 200 ft...

and this would allow a huge amount of money to be pumped into the public education system, into underfunded public healthcare, into making work for the unemployed, etc. etc... 

the biggest problem with the whole system in my opinion is the passing of wealth from generation to generation, and I am not suggesting that this could ever change, but the fact that generations of families are uber wealthy no matter the generation's particular capabilities and merits, shows the complete fallacy of the "each according to ability" theme of neo-liberal capitalism... ability has nothing to do with it, it is each according "to the social status born with"... no one dare suggests it, but the US is pretty much a caste system with occasional exceptions... the poor class is largely uneducated and this is for good reason, the rich don't want to be displaced..

----------


## islandclimber

> America has no deadlier enemy than Al-Canada. If we could, we'd lop it off like a gangrenous arm. Haven't you seen that brave patriotic documentary Canadian Bacon? Our two nation's enmity has deep roots and as Herman Melville so aptly put it, "Towards thee I roll, thou all-destroying but unconquering socialist behemoth; to the last I grapple with thee; from hells heart I stab at thee; for hates sake I spit my last breath at thee. I would that my chest were a cannon, I would fire my hearts hot shell upon thee, but a moose would skate by and eat it with maple syrup."


Americans are still angry about us burning down their White House back in 1815  :Tongue:

----------


## JBI

> Americans are still angry about us burning down their White House back in 1815


Sadly though, we didn't do it, the British did.

----------


## meh!

I didn't do anything; nothing can be proved.

----------


## Paulclem

What makes you think anyone likes you... any more than anyone likes us.

I've travelled and seen the difference...

----------


## Paulclem

Sadly though, we didn't do it, the British did.

Not the French..?

----------


## JBI

> What makes you think anyone likes you... any more than anyone likes us.
> 
> I've travelled and seen the difference...


I think I've got a better response - they don't know anything about us, except that we live in a giant wilderness with free health care and a large immigration rate, but they hate you guys, so naturally, it is better to discussed infrequently, but generally liked everywhere, rather than to be discussed every day, and generally hated everywhere. The only problem is, when I travel, they think I'm American, so it causes some confusion before they apologize.

But then again - whenever I'm abroad and run into Americans, they can never understand why everyone hates them - they always seem to think that America is the best place on earth, and that they should be well liked. I had one chap from Texas tell me he "didn't get" what the fuss was about in Vienna, and that Texas is far nicer than Europe by a long shot. Everyone else there who wasn't American, or who wasn't proudly American, merely started laughing.

----------


## JBI

> Sadly though, we didn't do it, the British did.
> 
> Not the French..?


1815 Canada did not exist, and people (assuming they were Anglo-Canadians) did not think of themselves as part of something outside of Britain - the soldiers and the force were redcoats too, at any rate. The actual birth of an autonomous identity for Canada - that is, a view of Canadians as their own people - in English Canada didn't really start until the mass immigrations in 1900-1904 (I think that's the date), and then finally until WWI, which was viewed as a positive, nation building event until the 70s in Canadian discourse. The role of "Canada" in burning the White House though is not logical - there was no Canada, and there were no "Canadians".

----------


## meh!

Canadians are certainly liked a lot more. When people talk about Europe versus America they're talking about Europe versus the USA. The only problem is that people sometimes mistake your accents for American accents. I ( like everyone else in Scotland, haha) have numerous Canadian relatives. 

English people can also note the better reception you recieve when you make it clear that you're Scottish and not English or British (Which is often synonymous with British to other Europeans). Which is quite good cause... Scotland was part of the Empire that messed everyone up but doesn't have to take any of the cultural stick, haha.

----------


## Emil Miller

[QUOTE=meh!;757477] Society should support free education for all its citizens
We already have free medical care.

I have followed this thread with interest but I am always amazed at the ignorance of basic economics that allows people to speak of "Free" this or "Free" that.
Everything has to be paid for and, as it usually comes out of taxation, we are all paying for it anyway. The NHS in the UK is probaly the single most costly government organisation, with the possible exclusion of the Ministry of Defence, that has ever been devised. The latest of the regular capital injections it recieves cost £30 billion pounds. If the USA, with its much larger population, decides to go down the same road, it's health care will be very far being free I can assure you.

----------


## WICKES

> I 
> But then again - whenever I'm abroad and run into Americans, they can never understand why everyone hates them - they always seem to think that America is the best place on earth, and that they should be well liked. I had one chap from Texas tell me he "didn't get" what the fuss was about in Vienna, and that Texas is far nicer than Europe by a long shot. Everyone else there who wasn't American, or who wasn't proudly American, merely started laughing.


That is true. Americans seem to think they are the only democracy in the world and that everyone else lives in brutal dictatorships or extreme poverty and is just longing to get to the USA. No doubt the average American thinks the Queen rules Britain and that we look longingly across the Atlantic at the free Americans. In fact the monarchy has virtually no real power in Britain and is a national joke which is retained to attract tourists.

Truth is there are lots of places I'd rather live than the USA: France for example, which has better health care, better schools, lower crime plus beautiful cathedrals and a 1000 year old culture. I'd also rather live in New Zealand, Australia, Italy, Holland or Scandinavia than the USA. That's not to say the USA isn't a fascinating and beautiful place and a great success story.

----------


## JBI

[QUOTE=Brian Bean;757539]


> Society should support free education for all its citizens
> We already have free medical care.
> 
> I have followed this thread with interest but I am always amazed at the ignorance of basic economics that allows people to speak of "Free" this or "Free" that.
> Everything has to be paid for and, as it usually comes out of taxation, we are all paying for it anyway. The NHS in the UK is probaly the single most costly government organisation, with the possible exclusion of the Ministry of Defence, that has ever been devised. The latest of the regular capital injections it recieves cost £30 billion pounds. If the USA, with its much larger population, decides to go down the same road, it's health care will be very far being free I can assure you.


Taxation isn't the only way - for instance, Canada can make certain industries public, and fund things that way - they don't, and probably won't, and instead will tax everything, but they hypothetically can.

----------


## Paulclem

English people can also note the better reception you recieve when you make it clear that you're Scottish and not English or British (Which is often synonymous with British to other Europeans). Which is quite good cause... Scotland was part of the Empire that messed everyone up but doesn't have to take any of the cultural stick, haha. 

Well I'm from Yorkshire - virtually a different county anyway...

If you don't talk estuary English, you are let off the Empire rap. Those Oxbridge people have a lot to answer for around the world.

----------


## Paulclem

1815 Canada did not exist, and people (assuming they were Anglo-Canadians) did not think of themselves as part of something outside of Britain - the soldiers and the force were redcoats too, at any rate. The actual birth of an autonomous identity for Canada - that is, a view of Canadians as their own people - in English Canada didn't really start until the mass immigrations in 1900-1904 (I think that's the date), and then finally until WWI, which was viewed as a positive, nation building event until the 70s in Canadian discourse. The role of "Canada" in burning the White House though is not logical - there was no Canada, and there were no "Canadians".

I'm afraid I am quite ignorant of the origins of your nation.

----------


## meh!

[QUOTE=Brian Bean;757539]


> Society should support free education for all its citizens
> We already have free medical care.
> 
> I have followed this thread with interest but I am always amazed at the ignorance of basic economics that allows people to speak of "Free" this or "Free" that.
> Everything has to be paid for and, as it usually comes out of taxation, we are all paying for it anyway. The NHS in the UK is probaly the single most costly government organisation, with the possible exclusion of the Ministry of Defence, that has ever been devised. The latest of the regular capital injections it recieves cost £30 billion pounds. If the USA, with its much larger population, decides to go down the same road, it's health care will be very far being free I can assure you.


Wow. Everyone in the country knows what 'free health care' means. The NHS has no direct charged levied, is free on point of need. No one who says 'free' has ever tried to suggest that it was somehow unpaid for. Why would you make this complaint? It's like when people say, 'I'm going down to Glasgow/London/Wherever' they don't actually think they're traveling 'down', you see? It's a word that effectively and efficiently conveys the intended meaning without necessitating undue verbosity. 

So, sorry, 'Tax funded but with contributions from Private Finance investment, state administered at a devolved level health care'.

I can be patronising, too.

----------


## Emil Miller

> That is true. Americans seem to think they are the only democracy in the world and that everyone else lives in brutal dictatorships or extreme poverty and is just longing to get to the USA. No doubt the average American thinks the Queen rules Britain and that we look longingly across the Atlantic at the free Americans. In fact the monarchy has virtually no real power in Britain and is a national joke which is retained to attract tourists.
> 
> Truth is there are lots of places I'd rather live than the USA: France for example, which has better health care, better schools, lower crime plus beautiful cathedrals and a 1000 year old culture. I'd also rather live in New Zealand, Australia, Italy, Holland or Scandinavia than the USA. That's not to say the USA isn't a fascinating and beautiful place and a great success story.



I am not particularly enamoured of the USA or its citizens but some of the most self-righteously bigoted people I know have been English, so you won't find me burning the Stars and Stripes or making politically motivated criticism of the US.

----------


## Emil Miller

[QUOTE=meh!;757562]


> Wow. Everyone in the country knows what 'free health care' means (except you apparently). The NHS has no direct charged levied, is free on point of need.
> 
> I can be patronising, too.


Next time you get your wage slip, you will find a box marked National Insurance with a sum of money printed in it. We all pay for health care *before* the point of need.

----------


## Paulclem

I think it's far too much of a generalisation to speak about nations and what their people are like. The stereotypes we all ascribe probably have little to do with what you will find if you visit a country.

----------


## meh!

[QUOTE=Brian Bean;757570]


> Next time you get your wage slip, you will find a box marked National Insurance with a sum of money printed in it. We all pay for health care *before* the point of need.



...

I know!

Everyone knows that!

No one's trying to slip this by with the cleverly devised 'free'. It's just a useful way to refer to it to distinguish it from private health care.

----------


## stlukesguild

It's motivated by self-interest and other things. It's always been false to suggest that naked self-interest is the only motivation. Less people will doctors if they pay is cut ridiculously but most will stay if the pay is cut a little because people do things for reasons other than money. Anyone suggesting that people only work for comfort is doing a great disservice to those around them, I feel. 

Perhaps... but then I don't live in Candyland; I live in the real world, and the real world people put forth effort in expectations of a certain return... a reward. I highly doubt that students make the decision to enter medicine or the law based largely upon altruistic impulses. Certainly, there are exceptions... but really, if we were to cut the salaries of lawyers and doctors across the board by 1/3rd do you honestly still imagine that there would be such a glut of students continuing to major in the field? The vast majority of students major in Law, or Medicine, or Engineering, or some other practical field of study as opposed to Philosophy, or Music, or Art History, or Comparative Literature because of what?

It's not what i've experienced, even from some right scum. I don't particularly think British doctors' wages should be cut, doctors are ace, though nurses aren't being paid enough...

Certainly most professionals do their job to the best of their abilities... and even come to love their jobs. There are surely rewards in the role of the educator that goes beyond money... but I'd give it up in a minute if I weren't paid enough to support myself and my family to a standard I feel is worthy of my efforts. I'd give it up even faster if I won the lottery. Anyone who says otherwise has probably not worked long enough in the real world.

SLG Quote-In the US we already have a degree of animosity between the Middle Class and the Poor as many who work hard to maintain their economic situation are resentful that the Poor can churn out 6 or 7 kids (all receiving full medical coverage) and eat better than the middle class on Welfare and food stamps'

ie what they have has, immediately, is a problem with the image of the poor presented to them. And, perhaps, with a better welfare system (America's whole welfare system being notoriously bad) there wouldn't be so many cases to demonize the poor with.

I'm sorry... but in my profession I have gotten to know more than a fair share of the poor. Certainly there are those who are working to improve their situation, but there are also far too many abuses of the system. There needs to be greater oversight: a limit to the time spent on Welfare (outside of special circumstances such as physical or mental disability), a limit to the number of children one may have at state cost. There also needs to be the expectation of repayment. You suggest that those who are successful "owe" society at large a debt, yet those at the opposite end owe nothing?

You honestly think we can't level the playing field more than at the moment. Wow. Yes, some people are simply more intelligent, more daring etc.'simply better equipped' em, that's just sneaking the whole issue by. Of course they're 'simply better equipped' because they're bloody rich. 1 in 3 British MPs come from a 7% percent pool of the population because they were more intelligent and daring? No, because we live in a fixable unequal society.

Certainly we can level the playing field to a greater extent. In the US I would say this can be (needs to be) most obviously addressed at the grade-school level. The disparity between the schools in the wealthy districts vs those in poorer neighborhoods is unconscionable. How far though do we go to achieve this? At what point do we cross the line where the tax burden upon the wealthy and the middle-class become so large that they begin to look elsewhere. Why do you think the economies in places like China, Abu Dubai, and the former Soviet Union are booming? Undoubtedly it is a fact, albeit a cruel fact that the highly motivated and the wealthy are the greatest asset to a nation. The poor are a liability. The ideal is to give the poor every possible option to pull themselves up without so overburdening the wealthy that they will begin to look for other options (be it hidden bank accounts, fraudulent tax returns, or moving elsewhere.) 

No. People who do well in business (ie are rich) pay more taxes than everyone else because they are part of our society, they got rich of it and they can give back to it. <---- 1 issue

Somehow I suspect society wasn't there when they started out... working two jobs to go to pay for college... risking their hard-earned income upon some business venture without the least guarantee of success... putting in 12 and 16 hour days at the start... but after all the hard work pays off suddenly its all due to the efforts of the society as a whole? 

It's easy to scare people into not wanting this kind of change by suggesting that you're really just punishing the better off. No, you're asking them to pay their dues to society - the society that gave them what they have and you're helping up the unfortunate.

Marxism died miserably years ago. The only one's who take it seriously at all anymore are academics and students. You would suggest that some great abstraction such as "society" is deserving of all the credit for this or that individual's success? Undoubtedly it is also all society that is to blame for their failings as well. It wasn't the individual who decided to rape and kill 13 girls... its all society's doing. :Rolleyes: 


Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild View Post
[COLOR="DarkRed"]
Perhaps the question is "how much is enough?" Free housing, free food, free pre-natal care, free medical care... where do we draw the line?
We already have free medical care (and so obviously prenatal care). For the rest of them... there is council housing and dole money etc - which basically adds up to what you're saying. Works far better than the system America is running, I think. Jeez, let's not get into a free health care debate, haha.

Abuses of the welfare state are hugely exaggerated here, I imagine they are in America too. 

Or perhaps it is simply the reality of government incompetence. Again we have the problem of the lack of motivation. Those government employees who oversee the vast Welfare systems have no motivation to do more than the minimum required. Or perhaps this is a uniquely American fear: the distrust of big government.

The problem is really not that the poor aren't working hard enough and our job isn't to cater to the middle classes sense of resentment.

So you imagine you can simply sell the notion of increased tax burdens upon the rich and the middle-class with the idea that they simply "owe everything they have to society"? And how long do you imagine that a government that panders to the poor at the expense of everyone else can stay in power?

How does a person look for a job when they're working on the highways? How do they gain skills to progress in life whilst they're working on the highways? They don't. 

Hmmm... That's strange. If I recall I worked a full-time job physically demanding job (40 hours spread over a three day weekend) and more in the summer in order to pay for my college education. Unsurprisingly, I took my education very serious and maintained the highest grades. Neither do I imagine that I am exceptional in this manner. 

As I stated earlier... I agree that there are many things that are unfair and that can or should be changed about public education (at both the grade school and college level). I also agree that there are aspects of huge disparity between the very rich and the poor that need to be addressed... but in playing the Devil's advocate I am challenging the simplistic notion that these problems can all be wiped away... and that we shall beget a society of equality, opportunity, and egalitarianism simply by increasing the tax burden upon those whose efforts have resulted in larger income.

----------


## stlukesguild

the biggest problem with the whole system in my opinion is the passing of wealth from generation to generation, and I am not suggesting that this could ever change, but the fact that generations of families are uber wealthy no matter the generation's particular capabilities and merits, shows the complete fallacy of the "each according to ability" theme of neo-liberal capitalism...

How do we address this... or do we? Should I not have the ability to see to it that my children and spouse are well taken care of after I die if I have put forth the efforts needed to build a personal body of wealth? 

By the way... the entire quote is "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need," and it is as far from Neo-Conservative Capitalism as possible... it was a quote popularized by Karl Marx. The problem with the concept is that again it does not address the issue of motivation. I may have the greatest abilities but I probably would be less that thrilled with the concept that I employ these for the good of the state with little thoughts to my own desires. The reality is that motivation comes from desire as much as need. None of us NEEDS to go to college, or live in a big house, or own a nice car, or eat steak on Sundays, or travel when we wish... but we desire them. Do others/society owe it to me to see that my desires are met?

----------


## stlukesguild

It's motivated by self-interest and other things. It's always been false to suggest that naked self-interest is the only motivation. Less people will doctors if they pay is cut ridiculously but most will stay if the pay is cut a little because people do things for reasons other than money. Anyone suggesting that people only work for comfort is doing a great disservice to those around them, I feel. 

Perhaps... but then I don't live in Candyland; I live in the real world, and the real world people put forth effort in expectations of a certain return... a reward. I highly doubt that students make the decision to enter medicine or the law based largely upon altruistic impulses. Certainly, there are exceptions... but really, if we were to cut the salaries of lawyers and doctors across the board by 1/3rd do you honestly still imagine that there would be such a glut of students continuing to major in the field? The vast majority of students major in Law, or Medicine, or Engineering, or some other practical field of study as opposed to Philosophy, or Music, or Art History, or Comparative Literature because of what?

It's not what i've experienced, even from some right scum. I don't particularly think British doctors' wages should be cut, doctors are ace, though nurses aren't being paid enough...

Certainly most professionals do their job to the best of their abilities... and even come to love their jobs. There are surely rewards in the role of the educator that goes beyond money... but I'd give it up in a minute if I weren't paid enough to support myself and my family to a standard I feel is worthy of my efforts. I'd give it up even faster if I won the lottery. Anyone who says otherwise has probably not worked long enough in the real world.

SLG Quote-In the US we already have a degree of animosity between the Middle Class and the Poor as many who work hard to maintain their economic situation are resentful that the Poor can churn out 6 or 7 kids (all receiving full medical coverage) and eat better than the middle class on Welfare and food stamps'

ie what they have has, immediately, is a problem with the image of the poor presented to them. And, perhaps, with a better welfare system (America's whole welfare system being notoriously bad) there wouldn't be so many cases to demonize the poor with.

I'm sorry... but in my profession I have gotten to know more than a fair share of the poor. Certainly there are those who are working to improve their situation, but there are also far too many abuses of the system. There needs to be greater oversight: a limit to the time spent on Welfare (outside of special circumstances such as physical or mental disability), a limit to the number of children one may have at state cost. There also needs to be the expectation of repayment. You suggest that those who are successful "owe" society at large a debt, yet those at the opposite end owe nothing?

You honestly think we can't level the playing field more than at the moment. Wow. Yes, some people are simply more intelligent, more daring etc.'simply better equipped' em, that's just sneaking the whole issue by. Of course they're 'simply better equipped' because they're bloody rich. 1 in 3 British MPs come from a 7% percent pool of the population because they were more intelligent and daring? No, because we live in a fixable unequal society.

Certainly we can level the playing field to a greater extent. In the US I would say this can be (needs to be) most obviously addressed at the grade-school level. The disparity between the schools in the wealthy districts vs those in poorer neighborhoods is unconscionable. How far though do we go to achieve this? At what point do we cross the line where the tax burden upon the wealthy and the middle-class become so large that they begin to look elsewhere. Why do you think the economies in places like China, Abu Dubai, and the former Soviet Union are booming? Undoubtedly it is a fact, albeit a cruel fact that the highly motivated and the wealthy are the greatest asset to a nation. The poor are a liability. The ideal is to give the poor every possible option to pull themselves up without so overburdening the wealthy that they will begin to look for other options (be it hidden bank accounts, fraudulent tax returns, or moving elsewhere.) 

No. People who do well in business (ie are rich) pay more taxes than everyone else because they are part of our society, they got rich of it and they can give back to it. <---- 1 issue

Somehow I suspect society wasn't there when they started out... working two jobs to go to pay for college... risking their hard-earned income upon some business venture without the least guarantee of success... putting in 12 and 16 hour days at the start... but after all the hard work pays off suddenly its all due to the efforts of the society as a whole? 

It's easy to scare people into not wanting this kind of change by suggesting that you're really just punishing the better off. No, you're asking them to pay their dues to society - the society that gave them what they have and you're helping up the unfortunate.

Marxism died miserably years ago. The only one's who take it seriously at all anymore are academics and students. You would suggest that some great abstraction such as "society" is deserving of all the credit for this or that individual's success? Undoubtedly it is also all society that is to blame for their failings as well. It wasn't the individual who decided to rape and kill 13 girls... its all society's doing. :Rolleyes: 


Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild View Post
[COLOR="DarkRed"]
Perhaps the question is "how much is enough?" Free housing, free food, free pre-natal care, free medical care... where do we draw the line?
We already have free medical care (and so obviously prenatal care). For the rest of them... there is council housing and dole money etc - which basically adds up to what you're saying. Works far better than the system America is running, I think. Jeez, let's not get into a free health care debate, haha.

Abuses of the welfare state are hugely exaggerated here, I imagine they are in America too. 

Or perhaps it is simply the reality of government incompetence. Again we have the problem of the lack of motivation. Those government employees who oversee the vast Welfare systems have no motivation to do more than the minimum required. Or perhaps this is a uniquely American fear: the distrust of big government.

The problem is really not that the poor aren't working hard enough and our job isn't to cater to the middle classes sense of resentment.

So you imagine you can simply sell the notion of increased tax burdens upon the rich and the middle-class with the idea that they simply "owe everything they have to society"? And how long do you imagine that a government that panders to the poor at the expense of everyone else can stay in power?

How does a person look for a job when they're working on the highways? How do they gain skills to progress in life whilst they're working on the highways? They don't. 

Hmmm... That's strange. If I recall I worked a full-time job physically demanding job (40 hours spread over a three day weekend) and more in the summer in order to pay for my college education. Unsurprisingly, I took my education very serious and maintained the highest grades. Neither do I imagine that I am exceptional in this manner. 

As I stated earlier... I agree that there are many things that are unfair and that can or should be changed about public education (at both the grade school and college level). I also agree that there are aspects of huge disparity between the very rich and the poor that need to be addressed... but in playing the Devil's advocate I am challenging the simplistic notion that these problems can all be wiped away... and that we shall beget a society of equality, opportunity, and egalitarianism simply by increasing the tax burden upon those whose efforts have resulted in larger income.

----------


## meh!

Perhaps... but then I don't live in Candyland; I live in the real world, and the real world people put forth effort in expectations of a certain return... a reward. I highly doubt that students make the decision to enter medicine or the law based largely upon altruistic impulses. Certainly, there are exceptions... but really, if we were to cut the salaries of lawyers and doctors across the board by 1/3rd do you honestly still imagine that there would be such a glut of students continuing to major in the field? The vast majority of students major in Law, or Medicine, or Engineering, or some other practical field of study as opposed to Philosophy, or Music, or Art History, or Comparative Literature because of what?

Because you charge them horrendous amounts of money to go to university? Lots of people do engineering etc here, but lots of people do English, history etc. Not very many of the some 100 thousand history students are HoA though  :Frown: . Also, a third is a HUGE pay cut. I think that most people would only consider being Doctors because they pay is alright and because they want to help people. If they pay is cut a bit they will still want to be doctors, if it's cut loads they won't. They want their effort justified but they are also directing their effort specifically for specific reasons. At least, that's what I gather from speaking to medical students.

'
I'm sorry... but in my profession I have gotten to know more than a fair share of the poor. Certainly there are those who are working to improve their situation, but there are also far too many abuses of the system. There needs to be greater oversight: a limit to the time spent on Welfare (outside of special circumstances such as physical or mental disability), a limit to the number of children one may have at state cost. There also needs to be the expectation of repayment.'

The emphasis is already in the wrong place if you're seeing a problem with the poor and then saying 'we need to be more careful about welfare'. You need to be better with your welfare, you need to spend it in the right places not just spatter it about to vaguely please the 'liberals'. 

'You suggest that those who are successful "owe" society at large a debt, yet those at the opposite end owe nothing?'

From each according to his ability to each according to his need.


Certainly we can level the playing field to a greater extent. In the US I would say this can be (needs to be) most obviously addressed at the grade-school level. The disparity between the schools in the wealthy districts vs those in poorer neighborhoods is unconscionable. How far though do we go to achieve this? At what point do we cross the line where the tax burden upon the wealthy and the middle-class become so large that they begin to look elsewhere. Why do you think the economies in places like China, Abu Dubai, and the former Soviet Union are booming? Undoubtedly it is a fact, albeit a cruel fact that the highly motivated and the wealthy are the greatest asset to a nation. The poor are a liability. The ideal is to give the poor every possible option to pull themselves up without so overburdening the wealthy that they will begin to look for other options (be it hidden bank accounts, fraudulent tax returns, or moving elsewhere.)

Well, Britain seems to manage fine at its current level of tax and public services which, whatever your view of whether they should or not, do more than America's. Fears that the wealthy will suddenly get up and go seem bizarre. Most people just don't do that, and business won't whilst there is profit to be made.

And the rich look for those 'other options' whether they 'need' (hahahahaha) to or not. Anyone with a hidden bank account is not 'overburdened', they are crook. I understand you're speaking practically, but let's not forget the facts about these people.


'Somehow I suspect society wasn't there when they started out... working two jobs to go to pay for college... risking their hard-earned income upon some business venture without the least guarantee of success... putting in 12 and 16 hour days at the start... but after all the hard work pays off suddenly its all due to the efforts of the society as a whole?'

Everyone of business owning age in Britain went to university for free. You paint an emotive picture but it's ... bleh. Some may well have done that, or the others that started off rich and got richer. Or those who use the small business grants that our governments provide to help people start businesses and such. Society provides them with the education, the health - it does create people. It creates the successes and the monsters. 

'
Marxism died miserably years ago. The only one's who take it seriously at all anymore are academics and students. You would suggest that some great abstraction such as "society" is deserving of all the credit for this or that individual's success? Undoubtedly it is also all society that is to blame for their failings as well. It wasn't the individual who decided to rape and kill 13 girls... its all society's doing.'

The only ones who take it seriously are the educated, he cries! (I kid  :Wink:  ).

And, no, Marxism (whilst partly discredited in this fake 'post-ideology' age - a swindle) has much more power here than you might think. Until the longstanding issue of Scotlands standing within the UK and a reaction against New Labour caused a swing to Scottish National Party which wiped out all the independent/small sparty seats Scotland had 6 or 7 Socialist MSPs. Socialism has a strong tradition in Scotland and Britain that it's simply false to dismiss. I don't know as much about the rest of Europe, though obviously it's still strong in France. And no, society is responsible for all of society.

Society is so clearly not a great 'abstraction'. When people get together they form a society. They are no longer individuals, they are individuals within a society.

'
Or perhaps it is simply the reality of government incompetence. Again we have the problem of the lack of motivation. Those government employees who oversee the vast Welfare systems have no motivation to do more than the minimum required. Or perhaps this is a uniquely American fear: the distrust of big government.'

This is part of why I tend to avoid arguments with Americans. Priorities are just different. 

'
So you imagine you can simply sell the notion of increased tax burdens upon the rich and the middle-class with the idea that they simply "owe everything they have to society"? And how long do you imagine that a government that panders to the poor at the expense of everyone else can stay in power?'

I'm not actually up on the podium right now. Nor am I arguing particular practicalities of politics right now. These are what I consider to be the facts, we can try and articulate them better later.

'Hmmm... That's strange. If I recall I worked a full-time job physically demanding job (40 hours spread over a three day weekend) and more in the summer in order to pay for my college education. Unsurprisingly, I took my education very serious and maintained the highest grades. Neither do I imagine that I am exceptional in this manner.'

So I take it the government is going to provide a way for these people to work on the highways and go to college then? Work on the highways over a three day weekend?

Having to work 40 hours a week and a fulltime uni education is called unhealthy. Guess who doesn't have to work 40 hours a week whilst at college? Me! Isn't that better? Exam time must have been a right bastard for you.

'As I stated earlier... I agree that there are many things that are unfair and that can or should be changed about public education (at both the grade school and college level). I also agree that there are aspects of huge disparity between the very rich and the poor that need to be addressed... but in playing the Devil's advocate I am challenging the simplistic notion that these problems can all be wiped away... and that we shall beget a society of equality, opportunity, and egalitarianism simply by increasing the tax burden upon those whose efforts have resulted in larger income.'

I've never suggested that these problems are simple, don't patronise me. I'm just articulating views that should be aired when someone, i can't remember how this came up, brings up the points they brought up. 

There are many important issues. Redistribution of wealth is just one of them.

----------


## islandclimber

> the biggest problem with the whole system in my opinion is the passing of wealth from generation to generation, and I am not suggesting that this could ever change, but the fact that generations of families are uber wealthy no matter the generation's particular capabilities and merits, shows the complete fallacy of the "each according to ability" theme of neo-liberal capitalism...
> 
> How do we address this... or do we? Should I not have the ability to see to it that my children and spouse are well taken care of after I die if I have put forth the efforts needed to build a personal body of wealth? 
> 
> By the way... the entire quote is "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need," and it is as far from Neo-Conservative Capitalism as possible... it was a quote popularized by Karl Marx. The problem with the concept is that again it does not address the issue of motivation. I may have the greatest abilities but I probably would be less that thrilled with the concept that I employ these for the good of the state with little thoughts to my own desires. The reality is that motivation comes from desire as much as need. None of us NEEDS to go to college, or live in a big house, or own a nice car, or eat steak on Sundays, or travel when we wish... but we desire them. Do others/society owe it to me to see that my desires are met?


but you confuse things here, I know the entire quote, what I was talking about is the way capitalism chooses to suggest it is "TO each according to ability" unlike the "FROM each according to ability" of Karl Marx... I would have thought this would be apparent... and again this motivation issue is pure rubbish, those children you mention above that you should be able to leave fabulously wealthy, they don't have to be motivated at all, and in reality this is often the case, they can sit back and float through life providing nothing to the state, just take and take... and that is the problem with inheritance of wealth and possessions... but do I really care? no.. this will never change, and neither will the extremely damaging ideal of the American Dream, the rags to riches through hard work ideal... all it does is provide an excuse for the government to say we don't have to help the lower class as through enough hard work they can help themselves, which is total BS. 

and again in this discussion you have dropped into suggesting that wealth is due to people working harder then others and that is beyond absurd.. most of the time it has nothing to do with that.. I know quite a large number of small business owners through my own work, who work seven days a week, long hours just to stay afloat in the current economic situation, and even in good economic times would never be called anything but average middle class earners.. and yet you suggest all these multi millionaires and billionaires deserve the money they make because they were "more motivated", "worked harder", "put themselves through college"... etc.. this is nonsense.. I know people who worked to pay for college, started their own businesses with their own hard earned money, worked excessively for 30+ years at it, and are they rich? no, they are middle of the road, still worried about having enough work to bring the income in... where are their millions? they are certainly deserving according to the criteria you make mention of? I'm just confused as to how you define if someone deserves these millions of dollars? 

I've never suggested we raise taxes on the middle classes, I think that would be a terrible idea, but allowing a person to make hundreds of millions of dollars a year is ridiculous... especially considering the plight of the impoverished... and to be honest, I know this will never happen as the poorest people are the least educated and never seem to understand that more government intervention in the economic system helps the poor, higher taxes help them, lower taxes and an extra say $500 a year in their pocket is far outweighed by the losses in things like public education and healthcare that necessarily follow tax cuts...

----------


## JBI

No, allowing someone to make hundreds of millions to me isn't ridiculous - allowing them to make it without being heavily taxed though, and at the expense of others is. It's just silly that the rich always find ways to cheat the tax system, yet someone in a poor bracket who gets caught stealing a few bucks gets punished far worse. In general, I'm just for adding more progressive tax systems, and for publicizing industries - something Canada should have done a long time ago, as we have enough of them to support the whole country, yet allow certain people to get rich, such as the American oil giants, at our expense. 

But look at it this way - a rich person, assuming they get into university, can get private tutors to write all their essays for them, can get extra exposure to things because of their wealth - can live on campus in a better, larger room, and can have the ability to not work to support himself, thereby giving him extra time to get better grades.

The system is rigged, even if you get there - keep in mind, Dubyah is a Yale graduate, yet he cannot even speak his own first language properly.


Now, there has been a study in Canada, for instance, that suggests College attendance, with tuition at around 2,000 does not have a correlation between parent's income and attendance, whereas universities, at around 6,000 a year give or take, when tuition increases, show a strong correlation of people from lower incomes not attending, or changing to part time status. Now, if, for instance, university too was 2,000$, then I bet the attendance would be much higher, and the actual output of the students far greater, as the burden of funding an extra 4,000$ for tuition would be removed. 

The education system from the beginning is rigged - more so in the US than in Canada, but here, and in Europe too - it is the government's job, the way I see it, to make sure that all children have the same opportunities when it comes to education - it certainly would increase the productivity of the nation as a whole, at any rate.

----------


## stlukesguild

You suggest that those who are successful "owe" society at large a debt, yet those at the opposite end owe nothing?'

From each according to his ability to each according to his need.

It was nonsense when Marx wrote it and its nonsense now. What it describes is a parasitic relationship. I'm entitled to what you worked for, right?

Well, Britain seems to manage fine at its current level of tax and public services which, whatever your view of whether they should or not, do more than America's. Fears that the wealthy will suddenly get up and go seem bizarre. Most people just don't do that, and business won't whilst there is profit to be made.

Obviously you don't know the least about economics, do you? Corporations relocate all the time. They move their manufacturing plants to Mexico or China or the Philippines because they offer far less overhead: lower taxes, less red tape, less government oversight, lower wages. This happens on a smaller scale when cities compete with each other offering special considerations such as tax abatement to gain a new corporate office complex or new manufacturing plant. It happens equally with individuals. In the US there are states and regions that continue to lose population... especially the best and the brightest because they recognize they have the potential to earn more elsewhere. 

Everyone of business owning age in Britain went to university for free. 

Certainly quite different from the US. Perhaps the CEOs of major corporations have a degree from Harvard or Stanford, but I would guess a great majority of the business owners have little of no college background. Opening a restaurant, a chain of beauty salons or coffee shops, an auto repair business, an auto dealership, or investing in real estate demands no college experience. Yet everyone who wishes to attend college and major in Eastern Philosophies is entitled to a share of what these people worked hard for? 

It (Society)...creates people. It creates the successes and the monsters.

Ah... there is the crux of our difference for I don't accept that at all. The individual is responsible to and for himself or herself. I am responsible for my decisions and my actions... not some abstraction like "society". As individuals we may accept the social contract which presumes that we surrender a share of what we have earned in order to fund a government (as opposed to the chaos of anarchy or the violent Darwinism of the survival of the fittest). We elect this government and vote upon which services we deem are necessities that should be funded: assurance of minimal food, shelter, health care, police and fire departments, defense, etc... We also decide where to draw the line between a "need" and a "desire". Every child "needs" and deserves a quality education that meets a certain minimal standard. But does every adult deserve a free college education? That's debatable. 

And, no, Marxism (whilst partly discredited in this fake 'post-ideology' age - a swindle) has much more power here than you might think. Socialism has a strong tradition in Scotland and Britain that it's simply false to dismiss. I don't know as much about the rest of Europe, though obviously it's still strong in France.

Marxism is "partially" discredited? Lets see... its over in the former Soviet Union (where it was such a success), it's effectively over in China... although there remains a strong strain of Socialism... but let's face it, the Chinese have a long tradition of being a communal society. Even their philosophy and their art avoid the concepts of the value of the individual. The West is quite different... and I would suggest that the United States, founded upon immigrants... those who got up and left believing they could construct something better for themselves... has a deeply ingrained belief in the "rugged individual".

And no, society is responsible for all of society.

Which essentially comes down to the idea that each individual is responsible for all of society. I don't know too many individuals ready to accept this responsibility.

Society is so clearly not a great 'abstraction'. When people get together they form a society. They are no longer individuals, they are individuals within a society.

Ah... we are not individuals but members of the State, eh Comrade? It is intriguing, is it not, that the worst abuses of the last century were perpetuated by the very societies where the state or society as a whole was valued over the individual (the Soviet Union, Maoist China, Nazi Germany, etc...). Most of these societies had no problem with eliminating any individual who was deemed a threat or a liability to the state. A great majority of these would be the very "poor" of whom the Socialist ideal was sworn to upraise.

Or perhaps this is a uniquely American fear: the distrust of big government.'

This is part of why I tend to avoid arguments with Americans. Priorities are just different.

Ah... but Europeans with all their history have no reason to fear the abuses of big government? Or perhaps you only speak for yourself.

Having to work 40 hours a week and a fulltime uni education is called unhealthy. Guess who doesn't have to work 40 hours a week whilst at college? Me! Isn't that better? Exam time must have been a right bastard for you.

On the other hand, it may be argued that I am the one who was far better prepared for life. The reality is that getting up and going to work each day is far more difficult than college ever was. And while I go to work I still must put in the time to keep up the house, do the lawn work, take care of the care, spend time with the family... and as a working artist... put in the hours working on my art work.

----------


## WICKES

It's surprising how many of the great British writers *didn't* go to Oxford or Cambridge: Chaucer, Shakespeare, Keats, Jane Austen, Alexander Pope, Charles Dickens, D H Lawrence, Virginia Woolf, George Orwell, H G Wells, PG Wodehouse...

----------


## Drkshadow03

> America has no deadlier enemy than Al-Canada. If we could, we'd lop it off like a gangrenous arm. Haven't you seen that brave patriotic documentary Canadian Bacon? Our two nation's enmity has deep roots and as Herman Melville so aptly put it, "Towards thee I roll, thou all-destroying but unconquering socialist behemoth; to the last I grapple with thee; from hell’s heart I stab at thee; for hate’s sake I spit my last breath at thee. I would that my chest were a cannon, I would fire my hearts hot shell upon thee, but a moose would skate by and eat it with maple syrup."


Shh, you're going to piss them off and they'll go on strike! Then who will make us our maple syrup? We'll have to get it from Vermont or something! 

------------------------------------------------------------------

To the rest of those in this thread, you do realize that the rich already pay significantly more money than everyone else in their taxes, at least in America, right?

----------


## JBI

I'm sorry Lukes, but do you know why the Auto Industy has such a strong connection to Ontario - it isn't because we work for cheaper, but the simple fact that our government pays for health care, so the union does not need to cover the expense, which is like 1000$ per car, in order to insure everybody. As is, in the US, all the production is done in Mexico and China, so the argument that they will all pick up and leave seems rather silly - they already have.

I've seen commentary suggesting that the autoworkers and the cheaper cars up north problem is at least in part responsible for the current debate over health care in the US - that is, the actual plan to move forward. It has been argued that it is not the point of view of the people who changed, who, for the longest time, have been saying they want it, but rather companies realizing that their system is rigged, since under unions they end up having to insure everyone, and, because of the lack of control, end up paying far far more per person, due to inflated treatment rates, and medical expenses.

----------


## stlukesguild

I'm sorry Lukes, but do you know why the Auto Industy has such a strong connection to Ontario - it isn't because we work for cheaper, but the simple fact that our government pays for health care, so the union does not need to cover the expense, which is like 1000$ per car, in order to insure everybody. As is, in the US, all the production is done in Mexico and China, so the argument that they will all pick up and leave seems rather silly - they already have.

JBI... perhaps you might visit the US and do a little reading on something other than Canadian-first anti-American critiques (which amount to little more than sour grapes) before posting. The US has more than a few Auto manufacturing plants. Just within the immediate vicinity of perhaps 25 miles there are at least 4 or 5 major manufacturing plants for GM and Ford. About 50 miles from here is a major Honda plant (yes... the Japanese have plants in the US... cheaper that shipping across the Pacific), there's a large Saturn plant to the immediate south and certainly any number of other plants further out of which I am not aware. There are also untold thousands of smaller manufacturing plants that sub-contract to the major auto workers. We would not be so concerned about the financial problems of GM if there were not so many (literally millions) of jobs tied directly to the Big Three auto makers. 

As for the cost of doing business in Canada... certainly medical insurance is part of the overhead considered. However, you grossly overstate its cost. I have medical insurance that easily rivals that of the UAW auto workers. Were I to be forced to purchase such coverage myself it would probably cost me $800-1000 per month. Obviously the corporations purchasing coverage in such huge numbers can attain such coverage at a fraction of what the individual can. Even if it were to cost them $800 per employee per month that in no way adds up to anything approaching $1000 per auto. You must also consider increased taxes on autos made in Canada and shipped to the US and well a shipping cost (trucks or trains). The UAW salaries in the US, however, are more than generous for physical labor... far more than what might be expected from Mexico, the Philippines, etc... Plants in Mexico, for example, save hugely on salaries and other benefits, but also on construction costs for expansion, and on taxes as well as red tape such as pollution requirements. 

By the way, a sort history of Canada's auto industry:

Canada is currently the 9th largest auto producer in the world, down from 7th a few years ago. Brazil and Spain recently surpassed Canadian production for the first time ever. Canada's highest ranking ever was 2nd largest producer in the world between 1918 and 1923. The Canadian auto industry traces its roots to the very beginning of the automobile. The first large-scale production of automobiles in Canada took place in Walkerville, near Windsor, Ontario in 1904. In the first year of operations, Gordon McGregor and Wallace Campbell, along with a handful of workmen produced 117 Model "C" Ford vehicles at the Walkerville Wagon Works factory. Through marquees such as Brooks Steam, Redpath, Tudhope, McKay, Galt Gas-Electric, Gray-Dort, Brockville Atlas, C.C.M., and McLaughlin, Canada had many domestic auto brands. In 1918 McLaughlin was bought by an American firm, General Motors, and was re-branded as General Motors of Canada. Driven by the demands of World War I, Canada's automotive industry had grown, by 1923, into the second-largest in the world, although it was still comprised of relatively inefficient plants producing many models behind a high tariff wall. High consumer prices and production inefficiencies characterized the Canadian auto industry prior to the signing of the 1965 Automotive Products Trade Agreement with the United States. The 1964 Automotive Products Trade Agreement or Auto Pact represents the single most important factor in making the Canadian automotive industry what it is today: a strong, successful industry that has a significant positive impact on the Canadian economy. Key features of the Auto Pact were the 1:1 production to sales ratio and Canadian Value Added requirements. Magna International is Canada's biggest domestic firm in the sector, and is the world's third-largest auto parts firm, producing entire vehicles at its Magna Steyr plant in Austria.

It seems the auto industry did not flee the US to Canada, but was rather there all along... and later purchased by US auto corporations. The trade agreement between the US and Canada stipulates a 1 to 1 production to sales ratio. This means if Canada produces 15% of all the autos built by the North American auto industry GM plants, they are assured 15% of all the sales of these autos within the North American market (and probably the world-wide... although that is not spelled out). By the same token, in order for this trade agreement to pass the union, the Canadian workers would be compensated on essentially equal terms as their American counterparts. The Canadian health system undoubtedly saves GM, Ford, and Chrysler a good chunk of money, but in return it is assured that if the US manufactures 80% of all the cars made in North America, 80% of those cars sold in Canada (and world-wide) will be American made. 

It also appears they are in no way any better of than the US counterparts:

A C$4bn ($3.3bn:£2.2bn) bail-out plan as an aid two US car manufacturers with operations, according to a Canadian statement. The offer of emergency loans follows the US government's decision on Friday to provide $17.4bn in loans to help General Motors and Chrysler survive. It was a regrettable but necessary step to protect the Canadian economy, according to a statement by Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper. The amount promised represented the 20% share Canada has in the North American automobile industry, he said. The money will help the two companies continue to operate while they restructure their businesses. The federal government will provide C$2.7bn in short term loans, with a further C$1.3bn coming from Ontario, where the manufacturers are based. "These are extraordinary circumstances that require extraordinary measures," said Ontario premier Dalton McGuinty. Mr Harper said there were "hundreds of thousands if not millions" of families in Canada potentially affected by the ongoing difficulties in the car industry. He said the deal ensured that Canada was looking out for their interests... The North American car industry employs millions of people and businesses had said the bail-outs were desperately needed.

----------


## meh!

'It was nonsense when Marx wrote it and its nonsense now. What it describes is a parasitic relationship. I'm entitled to what you worked for, right?' 

This argument relies on a fallacious view of the individual. Saying, 'we are what we are because of the society (in all its forms) that exists around us therefore, when we are successful, we give back and, when we fail, we are looked after' would just be to restate a point i've made several times. Call it 'parasitic' if you want, it's just emotive rubbish.

'Obviously you don't know the least about economics, do you? Corporations relocate all the time. They move their manufacturing plants to Mexico or China or the Philippines because they offer far less overhead: lower taxes, less red tape, less government oversight, lower wages.' 

Of course I know that. A practice that should be stopped, as it happens, by the government. It still remains a fact that countries with far greater levels of public service and tax remain economically viable even in times of duress. 

'
Certainly quite different from the US. Perhaps the CEOs of major corporations have a degree from Harvard or Stanford, but I would guess a great majority of the business owners have little of no college background. Opening a restaurant, a chain of beauty salons or coffee shops, an auto repair business, an auto dealership, or investing in real estate demands no college experience. Yet everyone who wishes to attend college and major in Eastern Philosophies is entitled to a share of what these people worked hard for?'

Yes. 

'
Ah... there is the crux of our difference for I don't accept that at all. The individual is responsible to and for himself or herself. I am responsible for my decisions and my actions... not some abstraction like "society".'

A concept of individuality that buts its head up against reality and fails every time. You are what you're made. To put in a way that might come across as less overbearing:

We are created with a sense of our selves as distinct from others. What the self will be is determined by the circumstances we encounter throughout our lives. We need a system that respects the sense of our selves as individuals making free decisions (Whether this be true or not, which it doesn't really seem to be) but one which accounts for the limitations when it becomes apparent that our supposed individuality is causing problems. Ie, when someone grows up in a poor background and becomes a criminal is it because he's an individual? When 5 out of 10 poor people people are criminals, and 1 in 10 middle class people are criminals is it still individuality? No, it's our selves and actions being dictated by circumstances outside our control. 

'

Marxism is "partially" discredited? Lets see... its over in the former Soviet Union (where it was such a success), it's effectively over in China... although there remains a strong strain of Socialism... but let's face it, the Chinese have a long tradition of being a communal society. Even their philosophy and their art avoid the concepts of the value of the individual. The West is quite different... and I would suggest that the United States, founded upon immigrants... those who got up and left believing they could construct something better for themselves... has a deeply ingrained belief in the "rugged individual".'

If you think Marxism's influence can be boiled down to 'China and the soviet Union', you're just being ridiculous. The Labour movements, old bastions of socialization like the NHS and the BBC that people won't suffer the removal of?

'got up and left'? or were 'forced out of their country by poverty or actually by the lords/government'. That's certainly the case with emigration from Ireland and the UK. It's romantic and silly to think of America as founded by the 'rugged individualists' who were willing to strike out on their own.

'
Which essentially comes down to the idea that each individual is responsible for all of society. I don't know too many individuals ready to accept this responsibility.'

No it doesn't come down to that. Because individuals, on their own, aren't responsible for society. All individuals, as members of society, are responsible for society. A burden many people are actually perfectly willing to share. Because it is shared. An important distinction which you can't sidestep. 

'
Ah... we are not individuals but members of the State, eh Comrade? It is intriguing, is it not, that the worst abuses of the last century were perpetuated by the very societies where the state or society as a whole was valued over the individual (the Soviet Union, Maoist China, Nazi Germany, etc...). Most of these societies had no problem with eliminating any individual who was deemed a threat or a liability to the state. A great majority of these would be the very "poor" of whom the Socialist ideal was sworn to upraise.'

'individuals in a society'.< <----

And no, it's not that intriguing to be honest. Bringing up the Soviet Union as a bugbear to scare away all argument should have gotten tired out after McCarthyism went. There's this thing called 'balance' and many countries have achieved just such a balance. 

'Ah... but Europeans with all their history have no reason to fear the abuses of big government? Or perhaps you only speak for yourself.'

Germany retained a welfare state without regressing into Nazism. So did basically every western European country. Everyone values the NHS in Britain which, as someone else rightly pointed out, is one of the biggest causes for 'big government' in Britain - indeed it's the 3rd largest employer in the world (after the chinese army and Indian Rail). I don't just speak for myself. 

And no I don't speak just for my self. Would anyone with socialised health care like to venture an opinion on the American health care system? What is socialised health care but BIG GOVERNMENT working for the people. 

'On the other hand, it may be argued that I am the one who was far better prepared for life. The reality is that getting up and going to work each day is far more difficult than college ever was. And while I go to work I still must put in the time to keep up the house, do the lawn work, take care of the care, spend time with the family... and as a working artist... put in the hours working on my art work.'

Just seems like pointless conjecture. Are you saying people in other countries aren't 'prepared for life'?

----------


## WICKES

> . The Labour movements, old bastions of socialization like the NHS and the BBC that people won't suffer the removal of?


Ahhh... the NHS and the BBC (esp. Radio 4), along with Stephen Fry they are still the best things about living in Britain. Even Cameron came out and said the NHS was one of the greatest achievements of post-war Britain. Mind you, he knows there would be a revolution if he dismantled it. Not even Thatcher, at the height of her power, dared to tamper with it. It's one of the few things the Brits would still get out onto the streets over.

----------


## wessexgirl

> Ahhh... the NHS and the BBC (esp. Radio 4), along with Stephen Fry they are still the best things about living in Britain. Even Cameron came out and said the NHS was one of the greatest achievements of post-war Britain. Mind you, he knows there would be a revolution if he dismantled it. Not even Thatcher, at the height of her power, dared to tamper with it. It's one of the few things the Brits would still get out onto the streets over.


Aah, good old Radio 4. I'm on holiday now from school, and there's nothing better than pottering around while listening to R4. In just the last couple of days we've had dramatisations of Ruth (Gaskell); Bookclub with an audience with C.J.Sansom; an analysis of Tennyson's Ulysses; Villette as the daily serial; Book of the Week is a biography on Muriel Spark; With Great Pleasure this morning where a guest chooses their favourite prose and poetry; Great Lives today will be on Tennyson.......not to mention the classic comedies, like Just a Minute which is back, after a short run of I'm Sorry I Haven't a Clue, review programmes like Front Row, The Film Programe, Open Book, A Good Read etc. etc. I love R4. 

The NHS is our crowning achievement, but I do think Thatcher tried to tamper with it. After all, we have to pay for eye exams etc now, which was not what was originally intended. I think Cameron has more sense than to try and do anything too excessive though.

----------


## WICKES

> Aah, good old Radio 4. I'm on holiday now from school, and there's nothing better than pottering around while listening to R4. In just the last couple of days we've had dramatisations of Ruth (Gaskell); Bookclub with an audience with C.J.Sansom; an analysis of Tennyson's Ulysses; Villette as the daily serial; Book of the Week is a biography on Muriel Spark; With Great Pleasure this morning where a guest chooses their favourite prose and poetry; Great Lives today will be on Tennyson.......not to mention the classic comedies, like Just a Minute which is back, after a short run of I'm Sorry I Haven't a Clue, review programmes like Front Row, The Film Programe, Open Book, A Good Read etc. etc. I love R4. 
> 
> .


My great fear is that (under the name of 'inclusiveness' or something) Radio 4 will start being criticised for being too elitist, pretentious or some such nonsense and will start dumbing down. I don't want regional accents. I don't want programmes about 'yoof' culture presented by Richard Blackwood. I *want* Radio 4 to be elitist. It is a little refuge for intelligent, civilised people in a noisy, ugly, brash, vulgar, Americanised world (regardless of their class, ethnicity and gender).

----------


## meh!

I don't think radio 4 should be dumbed down, but the argument about 'regional accents' always comes across as rather hypocritical. It's the implied assumption that RP isn't an accent. Which it is. It is no more and no less an accent then every other accent. The only difference is that mostaccents signify where you're from, RP signifies how you were educated. 

accents =/= noisy, ugly, brash etc and if you (in the sense of 'one') thinks that, then that's your problem. It's simply a reflection of the actual people who are in this country. People who are interested in Tennyson and I'm sorry I haven't a Clue have 'regional' accents.

People on national radio should be clear and understandable, no more than that.

----------


## Emil Miller

I don't know if you have noticed Wickes, but that is exactly what the BBC has been doing for a number of years, there are now more regional accents on BBC than ever. A few years ago they even did a radio adaptation of Maupassant's Boule de Suif in Yorkshire accents;thereby completely destroying the characterisation. You are right about the "inclusiveness" angle though. There are probably more foreign broadcasters than native speakers working at the BBC although, thankfully, many of them are well spoken.
Accents can mar programmes by making it difficult to understand what is being said. By chance, I was listening only yesterday to a programme that highlights the problem. It was a gripping investigation into the cold war spying scenario in which the presenter discussed with former Russian KGB officers and their British equivalents in MI6 the methods that were used to acquire information, always under the the fear that they might be caught. 
It made James Bond look like a kids comic-which is what it essentially is.
Apart from the quiet ruthlessness that underlined their stories, the British all had the same accent i.e. Oxford English and was perfectly understandable. The Russians, however, spoke with heavy accents and it was very difficult to catch what they were saying for part of the time.
That wasn't the BBC's fault of course but it's an illustration of what can happen if other programmes that don't need foreigners neverless use them in the cause of "inclusiveness."

----------


## wessexgirl

> I don't think radio 4 should be dumbed down, but the argument about 'regional accents' always comes across as rather hypocritical. It's the implied assumption that RP isn't an accent. Which it is. It is no more and no less an accent then every other accent. The only difference is that most accents signify where you're from, RP signifies how you were educated. 
> 
> accents =/= equal noising, ugly, brash etc. It's simply a reflection of the actual people who are in this country. People who are interested in Tennyson and I'm sorry I haven't a Clue have regional accents.
> 
> People on national radio should be clear and understandable, no more than that.


I agree with you Meh! I love the programmes R4 put out, but I don't have a problem with regional accents. Only this afternoon there has been a play on about a Victorian detective, set in Scotland, Edinburgh I think. Brian Cox has a lovely voice, and I didn't have a problem understanding him. To use regional accents is not a dumbing down.

----------


## stlukesguild

Oh no... another aspect of inclusiveness that we have yet to pick up on in the US. Most broadcasts here draw upon the language as spoken in certain areas of the country where there in little or no accent (at least to American ears... undoubtedly it sounds as inflected to Brits as Oxford English sounds to us). Northern Ohio and Connecticut are two such regions... and I know that for a while there was even a school for broadcasters here in Ohio and in Connecticut known as the Connecticut School of Broadcasting in which "proper" enunciation was taught. I just can't wait until we have spokespeople on the news with a big Texas drawl, a North Dakota twang, a stiff New England accent, a harsh Bronx or Brooklyn accent or something even more incomprehensible from the deep South. :Eek: 

In a related vein, I recently saw a program on telemarketers being trained in India to deal with American (and British as well, no doubt) customers on the phone. They were trained to speak in a regional accent so as to appear more likable to the customers. Some specialized in New York accents, others had a southern drawl, etc... it was quite a riot. The next time you are speaking on the phone to a telemarketer or the service person for you phone, or internet or computer and you are certain from their accent that they are somewhere nearby... they may be all the way around the globe.

----------


## Emil Miller

> Oh no... another aspect of inclusiveness that we have yet to pick up on in the US. Most broadcasts here draw upon the language as spoken in certain areas of the country where there in little or no accent (at least to American ears... undoubtedly it sounds as inflected to Brits as Oxford English sounds to us). Northern Ohio and Connecticut are two such regions... and I know that for a while there was even a school for broadcasters here in Ohio and in Connecticut known as the Connecticut School of Broadcasting in which "proper" enunciation was taught. I just can't wait until we have spokespeople on the news with a big Texas drawl, a North Dakota twang, a stiff New England accent, a harsh Bronx or Brooklyn accent or something even more incomprehensible from the deep South.
> 
> In a related vein, I recently saw a program on telemarketers being trained in India to deal with American (and British as well, no doubt) customers on the phone. They were trained to speak in a regional accent so as to appear more likable to the customers. Some specialized in New York accents, others had a southern drawl, etc... it was quite a riot. The next time you are speaking on the phone to a telemarketer or the service person for you phone, or internet or computer and you are certain from their accent that they are somewhere nearby... they may be all the way around the globe.


Well the USA is different in that long before the BBC began to have regional stations, the US had a host of commercial radio stations catering for different regions of the contry. So if you lived in Dallas you would probably get a Texan accent for example. Until the 1960s, the BBC had a monopoly of the airwaves and it broadcast, mostly from Broadcasting House in London, for the whole of the country. That's where the 'Oxford English' came in, because it was necessary to have a universal accent that everyone would understand i.e clear, precise, well articulated and and modulated that everyone, from one end of the UK to the other, could relate to. I still prefer it to any regional accent as representing the best English to be heard anywhere. 
As regards the use of foreign outsourced labour by companies and organisations, it is well under way in the UK. My heart sinks when I have to speak to my bank whose enquiries desk is now somewhere in India and the often barely intelligible voice on the end of the line means that a simple transaction becomes a major difficulty.

----------


## Paulclem

I still prefer it to any regional accent as representing the best English to be heard anywhere.

It is now niche English, as there are more Asian speakers of English than Engish speakers. Perhaps this is true of Chinese English speakers too.

I don't like the idea that you have to speak a cetain way to become a newsreader or presenter on TV or Radio.

The current newsreader on the BBC, Hugh Williams, speaks perfectly intelligible English with a Welsh lilt. It is encubent upon such newsreaders and presenters to be intelligible, but all the accents can be accommodated. There is a whiff of snobbery in suggesting that one way of seaking is the best English.

----------


## WICKES

I don't want all Radio 4 presenters to have an arrogant upper class accent, just a clear, standard, slightly refined British accent. I emphasise British, not English. Whether the refined British accent is Scottish, English or Welsh makes no difference. 

It's not about snobbery. It simply sounds nicer if the presenter has, say, a middle class Edinburgh accent than if he/ she is discussing T S Eliot with a strong Newcastle or Norfolk accent.

If you don't believe me then think of your favourite bit of poetry. Imagine it read by Alec Guinness or David Niven. Now imagine it recited with a Texan or southern drawl or a strong Yorkshire accent. I can't bear Shakespeare performed with American accents. I once saw The Tempest performed by American actors and it was simply ruined by the accent. The acting was fine, the set was great etc but the accent just completely spoilt it.

----------


## Paulclem

If you don't believe me then think of your favourite bit of poetry. Imagine it read by Alec Guinness or David Niven. Now imagine it recited with a Texan or southern drawl or a strong Yorkshire accent.

Funnily enough my relatives, who live in a place called Fitzwlliam - which sounds quite posh, but is in fact a rough ex-mining village, still say thee and thou when they talk in their strong Yorkshire accent. It is an accent you find around Barnsley, and is probably much closer to the original Shakespearian players speech than any recent actors. 

It is entirely a matter of personal opinion as to whether some accents sound better than others. Whilst I don't mind Alec Guinness or David Niven, and have nothing against them, they are icons from a by-gone age. What's wrong with listening to someone who is trained with an accent. I think of Richard Burton doing Under Milk Wood.

Were we just used to listening to Niven and Guinness because no-one else with a regional accent could get to do it? Certainly. I for one welcome the demise of all that.

----------


## prendrelemick

You can now hear many regional accents on radio 4, but when Susan Rae first started she would get hate mail.

She's the news reader with the beautiful voice and a very slight Scottish accent.

----------


## Abdiel

Though manufacturing is Ontario's primary sector, a lot of economists and politicians don't agree with Canada bailing out the American auto industry with billions in loans. It doesn't matter what Dalton McGuinty (he's a dim-wit) or Stephen Harper say (though he's an intelligent man and an economist), the point is that Canada has its own companies which are suffering due to the recession.

Many Canadians are asking why we are helping to bail out an American company (EVEN if it saves jobs) when our own home-grown Canadian businesses are going bankrupt. For example, former telecommunications giant Nortel is reduced to bankruptcy and will probably be sold to foreign buyers, and the government is doing nothing to help. There are also many smaller and medium-sized businesses which are suffering but the Canadian government is doing nothing to help. Instead, probably from political pressure from the US, we're helping save American businesses rather than our own.

----------


## Emil Miller

> If you don't believe me then think of your favourite bit of poetry. Imagine it read by Alec Guinness or David Niven. Now imagine it recited with a Texan or southern drawl or a strong Yorkshire accent.
> 
> Funnily enough my relatives, who live in a place called Fitzwlliam - which sounds quite posh, but is in fact a rough ex-mining village, still say thee and thou when they talk in their strong Yorkshire accent. It is an accent you find around Barnsley, and is probably much closer to the original Shakespearian players speech than any recent actors. 
> 
> It is entirely a matter of personal opinion as to whether some accents sound better than others. Whilst I don't mind Alec Guinness or David Niven, and have nothing against them, they are icons from a by-gone age. What's wrong with listening to someone who is trained with an accent. I think of Richard Burton doing Under Milk Wood.
> 
> Were we just used to listening to Niven and Guinness because no-one else with a regional accent could get to do it? Certainly. I for one welcome the demise of all that.


Well, Richard Burton's Under Milk Wood, which I agree is masterly, was recorded in the 1950s and that really is a bygone age in comparison with what came after.

----------


## Paulclem

Yes, but his regional accent was apparent then when no others were around, which is why I cited him.

----------


## stlukesguild

It simply sounds nicer if the presenter has, say, a middle class Edinburgh accent than if he/ she is discussing T S Eliot with a strong Newcastle or Norfolk accent.

Shouldn't you be discussing T.S. Eliot with a Missouri accent, anyway? :Goof:

----------


## stlukesguild

Though manufacturing is Ontario's primary sector, a lot of economists and politicians don't agree with Canada bailing out the American auto industry with billions in loans.

The money isn't going to bail out the "American" auto industry... as in the auto industry in the USA. It is going to bail out the North American Auto Industry... as in that segment of the auto industry located in Canada. You can rest assured that we are no more thrilled with the notion of our tax dollars earmarked for the bailout of the US-based portions of the auto industry... but just as is the case in Canada the number of jobs directly connected to auto manufacturing is astronomical. The loss of that many jobs would throw Canada and the US into a recession far worse than what we are currently witnessing.

----------


## JBI

> Though manufacturing is Ontario's primary sector, a lot of economists and politicians don't agree with Canada bailing out the American auto industry with billions in loans.
> 
> The money isn't going to bail out the "American" auto industry... as in the auto industry in the USA. It is going to bail out the North American Auto Industry... as in that segment of the auto industry located in Canada. You can rest assured that we are no more thrilled with the notion of our tax dollars earmarked for the bailout of the US-based portions of the auto industry... but just as is the case in Canada the number of jobs directly connected to auto manufacturing is astronomical. The loss of that many jobs would throw Canada and the US into a recession far worse than what we are currently witnessing.



The US definitely, Canada - well, when we stop selling raw goods to you guys, and sell instead to China, well then, then we'll really be out of this thing - at any rate, half your country is already owned by China, so it's just a small step up.

----------


## stlukesguild

The US definitely, Canada - well, when we stop selling raw goods to you guys, and sell instead to China, well then, then we'll really be out of this thing - at any rate, half your country is already owned by China, so it's just a small step up.

As someone who is so astute in recognizing the cliche in literature, I'm amazed at how you fall for these tired cliches in the political realm... but then they fit your continual Anti-Americanism, eh? We used to hear the same refrain about 15 or 20 years ago about the Japanese. Somehow they never seem to have gotten around to calling us on all those loans. Of course the mere idea of the United States defaulting would be economic suicide for the entire world. I don't think China's going to show up anytime soon and try to repossess North Dakota. :FRlol:

----------


## Paulclem

Shouldn't you be discussing T.S. Eliot with a Missouri accent, anyway?

Precisely. The whole idea about RP is a modern construct anyway. Of course the advent of mass radio and TV was populated with the plummy accented which has evolved into RP. The idea that a presenter will be unintelligible because they have a regional accent is ridiculous. Of course thy have to be intelligible to everyone. 

The link between dumbing down and regional accents is also spurious and anoher example of class based bias. No-one wants those dum yoof programmes taking over radio 4, but what that has to do with accent I don't know.

----------


## Emil Miller

> It simply sounds nicer if the presenter has, say, a middle class Edinburgh accent than if he/ she is discussing T S Eliot with a strong Newcastle or Norfolk accent.
> 
> Shouldn't you be discussing T.S. Eliot with a Missouri accent, anyway?


Last week I was listening to a radio programme about T.S. Eliot in which a recording of him reading from The Four Quartets was compared with that of Ted Hughes reading the same passage. The intonation was different but there was no discernible accent in either reading which suited the poetry better than if a marked regional accent had been used.

----------


## WICKES

> Last week I was listening to a radio programme about T.S. Eliot in which a recording of him reading from The Four Quartets was compared with that of Ted Hughes reading the same passage. The intonation was different but there was no discernible accent in either reading which suited the poetry better than if a marked regional accent had been used.


T.S Eliot sounded just like an upper class Brit of his day. If you listen to a recording of him reciting his poetry you would never guess he was American.

----------


## Paulclem

Last week I was listening to a radio programme about T.S. Eliot in which a recording of him reading from The Four Quartets was compared with that of Ted Hughes reading the same passage. The intonation was different but there was no discernible accent in either reading which suited the poetry better than if a marked regional accent had been used.

In your opinion.

What it comes down to is if you don't talk in a particular way, then you can't work in the BBC, broadcasting or whatever. This is how it was in the 50's and 60's. It did not represent the populace then, and it certainly doesn't represent the populace now we live in a multicultural society. I don't want to hear unintelligible versions of regional accents, but I equally don't want to listen to nothing but some "correct" English accent.

----------


## meh!

It's why peopel in the south of England don't realise they're part of a country  :Wink:

----------


## WICKES

> It's why peopel in the south of England don't realise they're part of a country


I don't think that's true. People in the south of England are the least region- conscious people in Britain in my experience (I live in Essex). Yorkshire people identify strongly with Yorkshire and Scottish people identify first of all with Scotland, but people in the south mostly just think of themselves as British (unless they are into sport and the football or cricket is on). I don't feel any affection or loyalty to the crappy little southern town I grew up in but I do feel a strong attachment to Britain.


A lot of Scottish people have this bizarre idea that the backlash against Gordon Brown has something to do with him being Scottish. For everyone I know it is completely irrelevant- it's just not an issue. Like most English people I have Scottish, Welsh and Irish ancestors. I am very proud of this and think of myself as British even though I have lived in the south east of England all my life.

----------


## meh!

A lot of Scottish idiots*. The only valid claim is this:

People hate him for good reason, they use the fact that he's Scottish as a slight stick to beat with him. ie the 'scottish kabal' that's 'running the country'. But it's not a huge thing. 

And i'll clarify my (semi) serious point. What I mean is that the rest of the country is aware of the rest of the country. Simply through existing in this country (reading books, watching films/tv, news, meeting people - everything) people get to know, vaguely, the rest of the country. I've found this to be true basically everywhere except cities i've been to like London and Bristol. It's not that they're regionalists, it's that they're simply not aware of the rest of the country. Their little bit is all they know about. Even if my analysis isn't that amazing, there's *something* about those places in England. Maybe it didn't help that my friends that live there are posh as **** so the people I met were right chinless wonders. 

Obviously this is a generalisation that won't apply to everyone, but I meet a lot of them when I'm down there. It makes you so uncomfortable because you not being from there is such an 'event'. It just seem to be a general cultural thing.

EDIT:

Other thoughts:

The reason people in the south of England are the least region conscious is because everyone else is reacting to them. They are the assumed power base threatening to swamp everyone else (forgive my melodrama) with everything that comes out of London(TV, national institutions, professional bodies etc etc). They have the assumed cultural coin and don't need to whip it up from things like where they're from. They're from the south of England; it's already the best place in the country (in their view). Yorkshire has a strong sense of identity? It also has fewer jobs, less influence nationally etc. Same for Scotland and Wales. Though with them, obviously, the situation is evolving. Our sense of identity is a reaction against these places lack of need for such a thing.

----------


## Paulclem

Yorkshire has a strong sense of identity?

It cetainly does due mainly to the strong working class traditions there. It can be embarrassingly provincial, now that I am older and have lived away for quite a time. 

I think Meh is correct in his general analysis - it is a reaction against being ignored etc. There is also a strong historical element going back to Henry VIII when the North rose in rebellion against the South and the King. The sense of betrayal felt then has gone, of course, but merely manifests in other things - in more recent history the miner's strike. A great resentment was felt against the Special constables coming from "Down South" to police the strikes. There's a strong tradition of the North - South divide unfortunately. It is included in the Yorkshireman's psyche, and manifests, in the worst cases, in inverted snobbery.

----------


## Emil Miller

> Last week I was listening to a radio programme about T.S. Eliot in which a recording of him reading from The Four Quartets was compared with that of Ted Hughes reading the same passage. The intonation was different but there was no discernible accent in either reading which suited the poetry better than if a marked regional accent had been used.
> 
> In your opinion.
> 
> What it comes down to is if you don't talk in a particular way, then you can't work in the BBC, broadcasting or whatever. This is how it was in the 50's and 60's. It did not represent the populace then, and it certainly doesn't represent the populace now we live in a multicultural society. I don't want to hear unintelligible versions of regional accents, but I equally don't want to listen to nothing but some "correct" English accent.


Yes, I would lay money against the number of interested people who would prefer to hear poetry spoken in clear unaccented English as opposed to those who would prefer a regional accent, unless the poem concerned a particular regonal location. I have no hang-ups about the way I speak even though it doesn't equate to upper middle class Southern English.

----------


## Paulclem

Clear yes. Unaccented - I don't think that's relevant.

----------


## meh!

It's not unaccented, petitio principii

----------


## WICKES

> i've been to like London and Bristol. It's not that they're regionalists, it's that they're simply not aware of the rest of the country. Their little bit is all they know about. Even if my analysis isn't that amazing, there's *something* about those places in England


. 

I think that is probably fair. Then again, it could just be a city thing. People who live in big cities tend not to be so interested in the rest of the country in which they live. 





> Obviously this is a generalisation that won't apply to everyone, but I meet a lot of them when I'm down there. It makes you so uncomfortable because you not being from there is such an 'event'. It just seem to be a general cultural thing.


I find that very surprising. It could just be the people you happen to mix with. The south of England, especially London, is full of people from all over the world- I work with a Mexican, two Italians, French people, South Africans...you name it. The only time being Scottish or Welsh is a big thing is during a football tournament, though as a kid my family used to cheer on Scotland in the world cup as much as England. So did my friends. It was only once all those stupid stories started appearing in the papers (usually with lots of exaggeration) of Scottish fans cheering on whoever England played that all that stopped.




> Other thoughts:
> 
> The reason people in the south of England are the least region conscious is because everyone else is reacting to them. They are the assumed power base threatening to swamp everyone else


.

Again, I think that is probably pretty true. I do sympathise with people in Scotland and Wales and I can understand why they feel sort of dictated to by London. 

I would be very sorry to see the union break up though. I think this island is, culturally, a more interesting place united than Balkanised. The world is going to grow ever more unstable in the coming decades as well (the USA being challenged by China, the unpredictable effects of global warming etc) and I just think we'll be safer and more effective togethar than apart.

----------


## meh!

I'm on the fence about independence. (not really, i just jump over the fence once every month or so and change my mind). 

There are things to applaud about Britain, but there are also significant differences that I don't think can be resolved and will always leave Scotland out in the cold. I'm concerned about things that can be lost, but i'm also optimistic about the political gains that can be made without the old tories and new labours. 

The SNP are a bunch of tools, but that says more about the rest of the parties that they're actually half decent compared to what else is on offer. That said, i haven't voted for them, haha.

----------


## Scheherazade

*R e m i n d e r

Please note that discussion of current politics is not allowed on this forum.

Such posts will be removed without any further notice.*

----------


## TheFifthElement

> Yes, I would lay money against the number of interested people who would prefer to hear poetry spoken in clear unaccented English


As meh! has already mentioned there's no such thing. What you call 'unaccented' is just 'unaccented' to you. Put someone speaking that way in the middle of a Lancashire town and it would be painfully apparent there's an accent there.

Enunciation would seem important. Accent, most certainly, is not. 

Interesting, there have been a number of comments in the thread complaining about not being able to understand people as though it is invariably the speakers fault and not ever the listener. Shouldn't the listener be making as much effort to understand as the speaker is to be understood?

----------


## Paulclem

I would be very sorry to see the union break up though. I think this island is, culturally, a more interesting place united than Balkanised.

I agree. One positive aspect of having the union and all the different accents etc in this island is you get used to a wide variety of people, which in turn prepares you for meeting people from different countries and cultures, and accepting them.

----------


## prendrelemick

_There's a strong tradition of the North - South divide unfortunately. It is included in the Yorkshireman's psyche, and manifests, in the worst cases, in inverted snobbery_

Thats true, and I think it is a confidence thing. There are people round here who wear their Proud Yorkshiremanliness like a shield. They are agressively defending their homeland, when no one is really attacking it. 

People of the south are more confident of their place in the world, and don't need to go banging on about it.

----------


## Paulclem

People of the south are more confident of their place in the world, and don't need to go banging on about it.

I think that's right. You get over it eventually - as I did, and then the positive aspects can come out a bit - many northern people are very friendly, and are willing to talk very freely to others.

I do find most people are friendly after a little while - or perhaps they're just humouring me.

----------


## Paulclem

Interesting, there have been a number of comments in the thread complaining about not being able to understand people as though it is invariably the speakers fault and not ever the listener. Shouldn't the listener be making as much effort to understand as the speaker is to be understood?

I think that is important. With globalisation, travel, etc - we all of us meet different people all the time. I work with a lot of people for whom English is a second language. It's worth the effort to listen - though I am not suggesting our newsreaders/ media people should not be able to speak clearly.

----------


## mono

Oxford vs. Cambridge, anyone?
Just to add some humor to the thread, and the subject of the thread, allegedly Oxford and Cambridge have frequent boat races against each other. Apparently, they hold them almost annually, along the Thames river, and Cambridge has the lead of 79 wins (vs. 74 by Oxford).  :Biggrin:

----------


## Helga

these boat races are always on the news here and some people watch it, it's a big event, not very interesting I think but they seem to love it...

----------


## Nightshade

> Oxford vs. Cambridge, anyone?
> Just to add some humor to the thread, and the subject of the thread, allegedly Oxford and Cambridge have frequent boat races against each other. Apparently, they hold them almost annually, along the Thames river, and Cambridge has the lead of 79 wins (vs. 74 by Oxford).


NO allegedly about it .It is one of the few sport things my mum will regularlly watch, she was born in Cambridge and thus always sides with them.

----------


## Paulclem

The boatrace is ok. We only have to put up with it once a year. There's then lots of footie on over the season.

----------

