4 ms·

His last paragraph nails it: "I can see why people are sceptical about universities, and angry at the elite ones. They are often now little more than training

His last paragraph nails it: "I can see why people are sceptical about universities, and angry at the elite ones. They are often now little more than training camps for the stormtroopers of capitalism."

stablenode 5y ago
Yes, damn those stormtroopers of capitalism! How dare they be in it for themselves! I mean, people pursuing their self interest (at the expense of whom, exactly?) is immoral, innit?
- approxim8ion 5y ago
  > at the expense of whom, exactly? Everyone they step on along the way.
  - stablenode 5y ago
    Could you develop that point? I went to a northern comprehensive; I now lecture CS, but I have no recollection of being 'stepped on' by the Tarquins and Glorias of this world along the way -- in fact, I always felt that it is they who should be worried if they try. You may have some self esteem issues, mate.
    - approxim8ion 5y ago
      I do have self-esteem issues, good catch, but I doubt my getting therapy would do much about already underpaid workers whose bosses are raking in bonuses while signing off on orders to furlough them, for example.
      - stablenode 5y ago
        Ok. This sounds like a bit of a change of subject, but I think I follow. This all sounds a bit general: which 'underpaid workers' (and what is 'underpaid'?), which bosses, and how much are they 'raking in', is it illegal? You need to be more precise to diagnose a problem. More importantly -- what are these people of whom you speak doing about improving their condition? Are they demanding a raise? You have my sympathy if you are the one stuck with an unreasonable employer and feel that you are underpaid: my advice would be to look for a new job and tell your employer where to go once you've found one. However, if you are not in that category -- I have to say that I've never found the altruistic Guardianista (there -- I've said it!) approach to economic problems to be at all credible. It all smacks of some perverse neo-Christian moralising about what's 'fair' and 'good'. You can nearly always tell that an economic argument is lost when people start speaking about morality. If you want to go to Heaven, you're welcome. Me -- I'd rather go to Disneyland : at least it's actually there (besides, I've never been before).
        approxim8ion 5y ago
        Speaking about legality is so much better than speaking about morality, yes? It's convenient, sure, but that's about all it is. If you want a more 'precise' example, here's a thread from just yesterday: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27319477 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27319477 > More importantly -- what are these people of whom you speak doing about improving their condition? Are they demanding a raise? Not at all, I'm sure they just roll over and "let themselves be sacked" because that's how it works? Saying "just get a job where you're treated fairly" is extremely reductive. Said jobs wouldn't exist if the people employed in them were already happy with readily available non-"exploitative" jobs elsewhere. I wasn't aware we were making economic arguments- after all your original comment ended asking whether it was immoral. Not economically unviable, not illegal. Immoral. Anyway, I'm not really looking for credibility, and my moral compass isn't tied to faith or organized religion, but your point is taken. Perhaps I am too, call it unrealistic or idealistic, for your taste. You're going to believe people like me invent problems to compensate for our failures, and I'm going to believe people like you overlook problems because they have found or earned enough to have the luxury to. We're not going to agree here and I'm not really interested in changing your mind. Have a nice day.
        stablenode 5y ago
        > Speaking about legality is so much better than speaking about morality, yes? It isn't better, nor is it worse; it is merely more objective, that's all. > I wasn't aware we were making economic arguments- after all your original comment ended asking whether it was immoral. Yes, sorry, that was meant to be tongue-in-cheek, but you're quite right on this count. I was simply attempting to rubbish an anti-capitalist argument in the article, but it blew up in my face. > Perhaps I am too, call it unrealistic or idealistic, for your taste. That's ok. Who's to say which one of us is 'right'? We can just say that we have profound disagreements about the merits of capitalism as an economic system -- I think that's fair and it shouldn't be a problem in a democracy. > I'm going to believe people like you overlook problems because they have found or earned enough to have the luxury to. You believe that if it gives you any comfort. For now, I'll just continue believing that "economics is the study of the use of scarce resources which have alternative uses" and leave it at that.
  - lightgreen 5y ago
    There’s something dangerously Marxist in this statement. Working better than your competitors is not stepping on them.
    - approxim8ion 5y ago
      You find my statements dangerous, I find the idea of viewing everyone as competition equally so. It all rounds out I guess.
      - traloid 5y ago
        That's because you know you cannot compete. Ironically, this kind of crab-in-the-bucket egalitarianism is a form of selfish self-interest on your part.
        approxim8ion 5y ago
        I'm 'competing' plenty by staying afloat and providing for my family every single day, thank you very much. And yes, sure. Call it what you want, but I don't want myself or anyone to have to 'compete' to prove their worth.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
    - dang 5y ago
      Please don't take HN threads further into generic ideological flamewar. We're trying to avoid that here, as it is predictable, tedious, and nasty. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - dang 5y ago
    Please don't take HN threads further into generic ideological flamewar. We're trying to avoid that here, as it is predictable, tedious, and nasty. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- dang 5y ago
  Please don't take HN threads further into generic ideological flamewar. We're trying to avoid that here, as it is predictable, tedious, and nasty. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
douglaswlance 5y ago
Capitalism has raised billions out of poverty. We need more highly skilled capitalists.
- permo-w 5y ago
  since 1979, it’s been slowly lowering them back in again
  - stablenode 5y ago
    Exactly! Just look at those mad fools in China -- they'll never have it as good as they had it in 1979.
    - permo-w 5y ago
      Ah I see your mistake. You assumed my comment referred to a system different to capitalism operating in a country that less than 1% of the people on Hacker News live in. An easy mistake to make. Happens to me all the time. I see people talking about troop landings in WW2, and I instantly assume they’re referring to the Japanese invading China. Whoops. I’m so silly
      - stablenode 5y ago
        Whoa. Calm down. a) I'm not in China, and yes it would be reasonable to mention Chinese economic progress lifting hundreds of millions out of poverty by shifting towards a capitalist economic model under Deng Xiaoping, starting around 1979. b) I said nothing of the sort about the current system in mainland China being 'good', or the CCP being a 'good thing' (I would be the last person to say something like that about a communist party anywhere), so stop putting words in my mouth and don't make it personal. Capitalism has objectively propelled China's economy to where it is now and made it overwhelmingly more prosperous than it was before they tried it.
        dang 5y ago
        Please don't take HN threads further into flamewar, and please don't be snarky in HN comments. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

stablenode 5y ago

Yes, damn those stormtroopers of capitalism! How dare they be in it for themselves! I mean, people pursuing their self interest (at the expense of whom, exactly?) is immoral, innit?

approxim8ion 5y ago
> at the expense of whom, exactly? Everyone they step on along the way.
- stablenode 5y ago
  Could you develop that point? I went to a northern comprehensive; I now lecture CS, but I have no recollection of being 'stepped on' by the Tarquins and Glorias of this world along the way -- in fact, I always felt that it is they who should be worried if they try. You may have some self esteem issues, mate.
  - approxim8ion 5y ago
    I do have self-esteem issues, good catch, but I doubt my getting therapy would do much about already underpaid workers whose bosses are raking in bonuses while signing off on orders to furlough them, for example.
    - stablenode 5y ago
      Ok. This sounds like a bit of a change of subject, but I think I follow. This all sounds a bit general: which 'underpaid workers' (and what is 'underpaid'?), which bosses, and how much are they 'raking in', is it illegal? You need to be more precise to diagnose a problem. More importantly -- what are these people of whom you speak doing about improving their condition? Are they demanding a raise? You have my sympathy if you are the one stuck with an unreasonable employer and feel that you are underpaid: my advice would be to look for a new job and tell your employer where to go once you've found one. However, if you are not in that category -- I have to say that I've never found the altruistic Guardianista (there -- I've said it!) approach to economic problems to be at all credible. It all smacks of some perverse neo-Christian moralising about what's 'fair' and 'good'. You can nearly always tell that an economic argument is lost when people start speaking about morality. If you want to go to Heaven, you're welcome. Me -- I'd rather go to Disneyland : at least it's actually there (besides, I've never been before).
      - approxim8ion 5y ago
        Speaking about legality is so much better than speaking about morality, yes? It's convenient, sure, but that's about all it is. If you want a more 'precise' example, here's a thread from just yesterday: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27319477 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27319477 > More importantly -- what are these people of whom you speak doing about improving their condition? Are they demanding a raise? Not at all, I'm sure they just roll over and "let themselves be sacked" because that's how it works? Saying "just get a job where you're treated fairly" is extremely reductive. Said jobs wouldn't exist if the people employed in them were already happy with readily available non-"exploitative" jobs elsewhere. I wasn't aware we were making economic arguments- after all your original comment ended asking whether it was immoral. Not economically unviable, not illegal. Immoral. Anyway, I'm not really looking for credibility, and my moral compass isn't tied to faith or organized religion, but your point is taken. Perhaps I am too, call it unrealistic or idealistic, for your taste. You're going to believe people like me invent problems to compensate for our failures, and I'm going to believe people like you overlook problems because they have found or earned enough to have the luxury to. We're not going to agree here and I'm not really interested in changing your mind. Have a nice day.
        stablenode 5y ago
        > Speaking about legality is so much better than speaking about morality, yes? It isn't better, nor is it worse; it is merely more objective, that's all. > I wasn't aware we were making economic arguments- after all your original comment ended asking whether it was immoral. Yes, sorry, that was meant to be tongue-in-cheek, but you're quite right on this count. I was simply attempting to rubbish an anti-capitalist argument in the article, but it blew up in my face. > Perhaps I am too, call it unrealistic or idealistic, for your taste. That's ok. Who's to say which one of us is 'right'? We can just say that we have profound disagreements about the merits of capitalism as an economic system -- I think that's fair and it shouldn't be a problem in a democracy. > I'm going to believe people like you overlook problems because they have found or earned enough to have the luxury to. You believe that if it gives you any comfort. For now, I'll just continue believing that "economics is the study of the use of scarce resources which have alternative uses" and leave it at that.
- lightgreen 5y ago
  There’s something dangerously Marxist in this statement. Working better than your competitors is not stepping on them.
  - approxim8ion 5y ago
    You find my statements dangerous, I find the idea of viewing everyone as competition equally so. It all rounds out I guess.
    - traloid 5y ago
      That's because you know you cannot compete. Ironically, this kind of crab-in-the-bucket egalitarianism is a form of selfish self-interest on your part.
      - approxim8ion 5y ago
        I'm 'competing' plenty by staying afloat and providing for my family every single day, thank you very much. And yes, sure. Call it what you want, but I don't want myself or anyone to have to 'compete' to prove their worth.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
  - dang 5y ago
    Please don't take HN threads further into generic ideological flamewar. We're trying to avoid that here, as it is predictable, tedious, and nasty. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- dang 5y ago
  Please don't take HN threads further into generic ideological flamewar. We're trying to avoid that here, as it is predictable, tedious, and nasty. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
dang 5y ago
Please don't take HN threads further into generic ideological flamewar. We're trying to avoid that here, as it is predictable, tedious, and nasty. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

douglaswlance 5y ago

Capitalism has raised billions out of poverty. We need more highly skilled capitalists.

permo-w 5y ago
since 1979, it’s been slowly lowering them back in again
- stablenode 5y ago
  Exactly! Just look at those mad fools in China -- they'll never have it as good as they had it in 1979.
  - permo-w 5y ago
    Ah I see your mistake. You assumed my comment referred to a system different to capitalism operating in a country that less than 1% of the people on Hacker News live in. An easy mistake to make. Happens to me all the time. I see people talking about troop landings in WW2, and I instantly assume they’re referring to the Japanese invading China. Whoops. I’m so silly
    - stablenode 5y ago
      Whoa. Calm down. a) I'm not in China, and yes it would be reasonable to mention Chinese economic progress lifting hundreds of millions out of poverty by shifting towards a capitalist economic model under Deng Xiaoping, starting around 1979. b) I said nothing of the sort about the current system in mainland China being 'good', or the CCP being a 'good thing' (I would be the last person to say something like that about a communist party anywhere), so stop putting words in my mouth and don't make it personal. Capitalism has objectively propelled China's economy to where it is now and made it overwhelmingly more prosperous than it was before they tried it.
      - dang 5y ago
        Please don't take HN threads further into flamewar, and please don't be snarky in HN comments. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html