3 ms·

If we consider the cost of something to be "that which has to be given up to have it", then part of the cost of smart people going to elite universities and bei

If we consider the cost of something to be "that which has to be given up to have it", then part of the cost of smart people going to elite universities and being funneled into finance is that they don't get funneled into doing something useful [0]. Much as a number of very smart people get funneled into coming up with ways to sell advertising space on the Facebook. These smart people could have gone into any number of industries that are a lot more useful to society (which basically means "other people") than finance and selling adverts. [0] Harsh and hyperbolic for effect, but it makes a point.

LatteLazy 6y ago
That's a fine measure of cost. But then we have to ask the same question: what is the alternative? * Those smart kids could go to state institutions. But then we would need to fund those institutions so they could get a comparable education to the one they would get going to an elite university. And we have been cutting those very funds for decades (and increasing the amounts spent on sport stadiums instead of educational facilities). So that won't work. * we could move them once they graduate from finance to socially useful professions like education. But then we'd have to pay teacher like we pay bankers and no one wants that. Everyone agrees education is important, but not important enough to fund teachers. Same for researchers or medics or social workers or defence attorneys. People going into finance are making a rational informed choice that we encourage. If we really want less bankers and more teachers, we should pay for it. There are plenty of disillusioned finance workers who would come over (I am one of them), they just don't want to be charged for making the world a better place...
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- mrcorona 6y ago
  If we had chosen not to financialize a large % our economy, the fastest route to paying off school loans wouldn't be wasted talent in finance. We will pay for the poor choices we made in the 70s-80s until the process of dedollarization is complete.
- thatcat 6y ago
  That's a false dichotomy, maybe they could work on decreasing the rate of climate change instead of increasing it.

LatteLazy 6y ago

That's a fine measure of cost. But then we have to ask the same question: what is the alternative? * Those smart kids could go to state institutions. But then we would need to fund those institutions so they could get a comparable education to the one they would get going to an elite university. And we have been cutting those very funds for decades (and increasing the amounts spent on sport stadiums instead of educational facilities). So that won't work. * we could move them once they graduate from finance to socially useful professions like education. But then we'd have to pay teacher like we pay bankers and no one wants that. Everyone agrees education is important, but not important enough to fund teachers. Same for researchers or medics or social workers or defence attorneys. People going into finance are making a rational informed choice that we encourage. If we really want less bankers and more teachers, we should pay for it. There are plenty of disillusioned finance workers who would come over (I am one of them), they just don't want to be charged for making the world a better place...

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
mrcorona 6y ago
If we had chosen not to financialize a large % our economy, the fastest route to paying off school loans wouldn't be wasted talent in finance. We will pay for the poor choices we made in the 70s-80s until the process of dedollarization is complete.
thatcat 6y ago
That's a false dichotomy, maybe they could work on decreasing the rate of climate change instead of increasing it.