NYTimes: The College Graduate as Collateral

[Mr. Bigglesworth]

You should have studied economics. When I took econ It was to help a friend who was struggling in the business program. We would be study partners in a course many were failing. I needed an arts elective for my science degree. He passed, I got a good mark, I quickly realized i was wasting my time in science "because it was interesting". I switched to a top business program that was a bit sciency.


Its not punishment it is your reward! What do you mean you don't like the life you chose? You did choose it. Buyer beware and all that. Besides, as a medievalist surely you know what Shakespeare was all about. Life is a tragedy. "It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury signifying nothing."

[meadbelly]

^If that's what you take away from Shakespeare, you took the wrong classes.  ;)

[Mr. Bigglesworth]

Then that will be my tragedy.

[son_of_montfort]

You should have studied economics. When I took econ It was to help a friend who was struggling in the business program. We would be study partners in a course many were failing. I needed an arts elective for my science degree. He passed, I got a good mark, I quickly realized i was wasting my time in science "because it was interesting". I switched to a top business program that was a bit sciency.


Its not punishment it is your reward! What do you mean you don't like the life you chose? You did choose it. Buyer beware and all that. Besides, as a medievalist surely you know what Shakespeare was all about. Life is a tragedy. "It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury signifying nothing."

I do study economics, but historical it-actually-happened economics, not that theoretical crap they spout off on TV and in business schools.  :P

I love the life I picked. And I'll do just fine because I interview well, write well, and teach well. But telling students they should major in business because it is the best way to get a job (and it isn't, they are doing poorly getting decent jobs too) seems a little on the edge of assigning people their roles in life.

That being said, I counsel all my students against majoring in Philosophy. I mean really...  :P

[Mr. Bigglesworth]

What they recorded? Accounting. Adam Smith didn't start until about 1750. His invisible hand guides, it does not assign. Struggles against it are like against quicksand.

[son_of_montfort]

I disagree. Smith is neither infallible nor inviolate.

[Mr. Bigglesworth]

Nobody said it was.

[son_of_montfort]

Nobody said it was.

And modern day America is not really a good reflection of Smith's economics.

Also remember that Smith advocated regulation of bankers from doing exactly what has been done in the case of student loans.

To restrain private people, it may be said, from receiving in payment the promissory notes of a banker, for any sum whether great or small, when they themselves are willing to receive them; or, to restrain a banker from issuing such notes, when all his neighbours are willing to accept of them, is manifest violation of that natural liberty which it is the proper business of law, not to infringe, but to support. Such regulations may, no doubt, be considered as in some respect a violation of natural liberty. But those exertions of natural liberty of a few individuals, which might endanger the security of the whole society, are, and ought to be, restrained by the laws of all governments; of the most free, as well as of the most despotical. The obligation of building party walls, in order to prevent the communication of fire, is a violation of natural liberty, exactly of the same kind with the regulations of the banking trade which are here proposed. (Wealth 353)

A pretty clear support of government intervention in case of society wide damage.

[meadbelly]

Then that will be my tragedy.

But no one with such a handle as yours deserves tragedy!

[Mr. Bigglesworth]

Nobody said it was.

And modern day America is not really a good reflection of Smith's economics.

Also remember that Smith advocated regulation of bankers from doing exactly what has been done in the case of student loans.

To restrain private people, it may be said, from receiving in payment the promissory notes of a banker, for any sum whether great or small, when they themselves are willing to receive them; or, to restrain a banker from issuing such notes, when all his neighbours are willing to accept of them, is manifest violation of that natural liberty which it is the proper business of law, not to infringe, but to support. Such regulations may, no doubt, be considered as in some respect a violation of natural liberty. But those exertions of natural liberty of a few individuals, which might endanger the security of the whole society, are, and ought to be, restrained by the laws of all governments; of the most free, as well as of the most despotical. The obligation of building party walls, in order to prevent the communication of fire, is a violation of natural liberty, exactly of the same kind with the regulations of the banking trade which are here proposed. (Wealth 353)

A pretty clear support of government intervention in case of society wide damage.

LOL. You must have a different version than me. My Palgrave is boxed away. My version from online is different. What book, what chapter? Its mostly price levels for various things in gold or silver from 330-380 to me.


In any event people can enter agreements with a banker without the backing of government underwriting. Whatever came after that snippet, i doubt it said that industries should be able to take whatever risks with the backing of tax money should they default. Industries that would damage a nation by their failure should be torn apart so that no one actor has such power over the nation. Im talking banks not universities.


Anyone going for a government loan just because it is easier to secure than a private loan should be paying a premium. They are stopping the government from investing in other pursuits of the nation. So for example if a bank offers a student with no credit history prime plus 3% (lets say prime is 6%), they should not be able to say well the taxpayer will back you so its Prime only. No it should be If the taxpayer has to back you it is Prime plus 5%. The 5% goes to general revenue! How many will then think carefully about how that education will lead to a career? If party kid is burning daddy's money that is between them.

[Mr. Bigglesworth]

You might like this section. Wow the 1700s sound just like today!


"The progress of the enormous debts which at
present oppress, and will in the long-run
probably ruin, all the great nations of Europe,
has been pretty uniform. Nations, like private
men, have generally begun to borrow upon
what may be called personal credit, without
assigning or mortgaging any particular fund for
the payment of the debt; and when this
resource has failed them, they have gone on to
borrow upon assignments or mortgages of
particular funds.
..."
p1599

[son_of_montfort]

The idea that national debt is a new thing is vastly incorrect, right? People always forget that the American Revolution and the French Revolution were sparked by enormous debts in Britain and France. Which is why I always worry about the return of some sort of radical revolutionary mentality in the wake of national debt. Also, and I have been criticized for saying this, why I worry about movements like the Tea Party - who pretend to be the lower-middle class (the Sans-Culottes) but are being influenced by upper class puppet masters (Jacobin Club) and have a rhetoric of "protecting" the "patriotic" (and they define who is patriotic and who is a traitor) even if it calls for bloodshed.

What a good quote there, really reinforces the cyclical nature of history.

As to the page number, I got the quote from another website. I don't have a copy of WoN handy.

[Mr. Bigglesworth]

http://political-economy.com/wealth-of-nations.zip