The results of regulation... in all it's glory.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5

Index »
Community »
Debate and Serious Talk »
The results of regulation... in all it's glory.

2009-12-16 22:44:28

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6657|North Carolina

JohnG@lt wrote:
Turquoise wrote:
JohnG@lt wrote:
Cybargs didn't make a single good point. He wants protectionism.
Protectionism is no less a valid position than pure free market policies.

Historically, a balance of the two has been shown to work best in most countries, including this one.
Protectionism has been debunked as worthless economic policy numerous times.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercantilism#Criticisms

There, read that. I'm off to bed.

Edit - I'll never understand how people can call themselves liberals while embracing such ultra-conservative economic thought like socialism and mercantilism.

Double edit - In case you're confused, mercantilism is the same as protectionism.

...and I'll never understand the need to cling to labels. Liberal and conservative are relative, not absolute.

Protectionism serves a purpose in a relative sense. For example, Third World countries tend to be very protectionist of industries they focus on, which helps them prosper.

Europe is very protectionist toward certain markets, and while this obviously has its drawbacks, it also gives them certain advantages.

So no... protectionism isn't worthless, and if it was, no one would implement it anymore.

Last edited by Turquoise (2009-12-16 22:46:36)

2009-12-16 23:05:18

mcminty: Moderating your content for the Australian Govt.; +879|6973|Sydney, Australia

JohnG@lt wrote:
I'm not going to go into how the reserve system works when deposits are received and loans issued, because frankly, it's over your head and it would be a complete waste of my time to explain it to you.

Lol, what arrogance...

2009-12-16 23:09:20

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|6968

On an economic standpoint for the benefit of the world... Move all your industries to India. Better to develop a democratic nation than an authoritarian one imo.

https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png

2009-12-16 23:40:17

Varegg: Support fanatic :-); +2,206|7062|Nårvei

I get your points on how it should work Galt and nothing would be better ... but economic theory of a free market without regulation just doesn't work as intended ...

It doesn't matter if the perfect market works for decades if it only takes months for it to end up in utter chaos like we just have experienced ... yes you may blame the crisis on the wrong regulations being implemented but it really was just free market in all its splendor as the "sheep" being part of it made it crash!

And don't be so condescending and think you are alone with knowledge about this because you are not ...

There is a saying about economic experts being economics worst enemy

Wait behind the line ..............................................................

2009-12-17 00:44:30

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,815|6358|eXtreme to the maX

Remove regulation by all means, but steal money/go bankrupt/make a bad investment on someone elses behalf and you, any relations or descendants get locked in your house while its set on fire.

Should take away any incentive for malpractice and eliminate the criminal gene in a few generations.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2009-12-17 00:44:56)

Fuck Israel

2009-12-17 06:32:42

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5610|London, England

Varegg wrote:
I get your points on how it should work Galt and nothing would be better ... but economic theory of a free market without regulation just doesn't work as intended ...

It doesn't matter if the perfect market works for decades if it only takes months for it to end up in utter chaos like we just have experienced ... yes you may blame the crisis on the wrong regulations being implemented but it really was just free market in all its splendor as the "sheep" being part of it made it crash!

And don't be so condescending and think you are alone with knowledge about this because you are not ...

There is a saying about economic experts being economics worst enemy

I was condescending towards dilbert. He's nothing more than a troll that has an opinion on everything. Even matters in which he has no knowledge. So, why waste my time talking to him? Anything I say he'll just spend twenty seconds on google finding a criticism for it.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2009-12-17 07:01:14

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5610|London, England

Dilbert_X wrote:
Remove regulation by all means, but steal money/go bankrupt/make a bad investment on someone elses behalf and you, any relations or descendants get locked in your house while its set on fire.

Should take away any incentive for malpractice and eliminate the criminal gene in a few generations.

Next time you mess up in whatever it is you do for a living, I'll bring the torch and the lynch mob. Gotta set a good example, don'tcha?

2009-12-18 02:05:29

konfusion: mostly afk; +480|6802|CH/BR - in UK

JohnG@lt wrote:
Protectionism has been debunked as worthless economic policy numerous times.

Yes, and the US needs to stop employing it on its industries (like steel) - keep it limited to the farmers. Switzerland is a self sustaining country because we protect our electricity and agriculture.

Anyway, while I agree that it is sometimes necessary to have loans to make an impact on the market, or to launch a business, it shouldn't be a common practice to make ends meet - there should be a way of doing that in other ways. Otherwise you get a bunch of companies that aren't strong enough to handle a recession, because they surf on the boom when they start up.

Also,

2009-12-18 03:38:37

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,815|6358|eXtreme to the maX

JohnG@lt wrote:
Next time you mess up in whatever it is you do for a living, I'll bring the torch and the lynch mob. Gotta set a good example, don'tcha?

You're the one saying to remove all regulations - except those regulations which protect the wrongdoers apparently.

Fuck Israel

2009-12-18 07:37:14

Diesel_dyk: Object in mirror will feel larger than it appears; +178|6246|Truthistan

The article really shows you that the people in power are actively working to do the opposite of what they are saying publicly.

Isn't the market solution to all of this is to let them fail. You don't regulate to cushion the inevitable failure of these companies that are assuming a high risk high reward strategy. Instead, you sit flatly on the sideline and watch their financial titanic sink to the bottom as it carries all the greedy speculators and other idiots that are stupid enough to put their money into black boxes... just like the stupid Madoff investors. That's the way a market should work. But it doesn't work like that when you have money and lobbiests greasing the palms of politicans and whispering sweet tales of doom and gloom which the politicans repeat like parrots. When the bailout legislation was being voted on and the air was thick of these tales of doom, it sure looked to me like a texas hold'em bluff. But we will never know, now will we, but we are bing told over and over again that we were delivered from the mouths of a depression... maybe? maybe not!

One thing that's become really apparent to me over the past few months is the prevasive nature of corruption in the senate. These guys are publically basking in the glory of their corruption. IMO it must have to do with the length of their terms in the senate compared with the house. And I also blame the moronic electorate who pull the lever on the ticket because they want to be a team party member.

as an aside on crony capitalism, I can't wait to see the loopholes in the healthcare legislation now that everything beneficial has been stripped out. In fact it would not surprise me that in the next round of payoffs if the protections like "preexisting conditions" are dropped. In any respect, anything left in the bill will only cause costs to increase with out a meaningful competitor or cost controls. I warned in past posts that the legislation could end up being hijacked by the insurance lobby and produce a significant win for them if the govt drops the public option and passes a requirement that everyone has to buy private insurance. Now that the legislation has been gutted, the next act is to cut giant loopholes in what is left. I guess that's means our health care savior is about to deliver us into the mouths of the beast from whom he promised to save us from. But I have no doubt that they will tout it as a win and the insurance companies will be breaking out the champagne. And that's crony capitalism for you, it raises our costs and makes them money.

One thing is for sure, if health care passes without a public option for everyone, and cap and trade passes... I'm going to pull the lever on the GOP ticket next time. If I'm going to pay higher taxes I want to see something in return... otherwise I'll vote for the do nothing party that won't tax me for doing nothing.

Anyway back to Geithner, ever notice the resemblance to the investment commerical, unfortunately for us, "his" one big idea is to screw us all. I'm sure he's thinking about his future, not ours, given those garbage 110 pages of loopholes that he is trying to get into the reform legislation. And I'm sure that after his treasury tenure is over he will go back the Fed or will receive some other form of reparation from some benefactor. Crony capitalism/patronage will ruin this country yet.

https://osmoothie.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/timothy_geithner_0126.jpg

2009-12-18 17:22:06

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6657|North Carolina

Diesel, I normally agree with you, but you seem to have contradicted yourself in part of your post here.

First, you said the following...

Diesel_dyk wrote:
One thing that's become really apparent to me over the past few months is the prevasive nature of corruption in the senate. These guys are publically basking in the glory of their corruption. IMO it must have to do with the length of their terms in the senate compared with the house. And I also blame the moronic electorate who pull the lever on the ticket because they want to be a team party member.

Then, you said this...

Diesel_dyk wrote:
One thing is for sure, if health care passes without a public option for everyone, and cap and trade passes... I'm going to pull the lever on the GOP ticket next time. If I'm going to pay higher taxes I want to see something in return... otherwise I'll vote for the do nothing party that won't tax me for doing nothing.

In effect, you just reacted in the way you criticized earlier in your post. Voting for one party or another isn't going to solve anything. Vote according to the candidate.

While I agree with you that Congress has plenty of corrupt motherfuckers in it, the current strife in getting healthcare policies passed is actually a good thing in one respect -- it shows that the Democratic Party isn't monolithic. There is clearly a huge difference between Blue Dog Democrats and people like Nancy Pelosi. While I too am annoyed at how watered down this bill is becoming, I have to admit that having a variety of viewpoints within the Democratic party is much more preferable than what the GOP leadership is currently attempting to do to its moderates.

So again, this really shouldn't be about parties because candidates often vary widely in their views on many issues, even when certain party leaders try to homogenize their respective parties.

2009-12-18 17:22:29

PureFodder: Member; +225|6538

JohnG@lt wrote:
PureFodder wrote:
You're asking for a wild boom/bust economy that it ultimately extremely harmful to a country. Take for example fishing. If you don't regulate fishing someone will eventually decide to trawl the fish to extinction for short term gains, with the plan to get out of the market when the fish stocks collapse. At this point you can't go back, the fish are gone and you've lost the resource.

Without regulation someone will eventually decide to screw any system over for short term gains, quite possibly in an entirely legal way. It's very harmful to the economy.

Also without the relative stability created by regualtion in markets it is almost imposible to engage in long term planning as you have no idea what the conditions will be like in a year or a decade.

There's a good reason why every first world country has government regulation and central government planning, it's what actually works.
False. Every first world country has government regulation and central government planning because of the Institutional Imperative. It also came to pass because politicians happen to be people that covet power for themselves and have enough of a god complex to think that they can actually run something as infinitely complex as a first world economy. Add in the fact that politicians are a bunch of hacks who steal each others ideas and it's how we end up with stupidity like the Climate Exchange. Some politician saw it in Spain and said 'Hey, we should do that too'.

Regulation does NOT smooth out the boom and bust cycle. What it does is make the booms and busts bigger when they occur. But hey, that works for those who like regulations because then when the big busts come they can consolidate more power unto themselves while using bastardized Keynesian economics to 'dig us out' of the mess that they created in the first place.

Look at the latest bubble. If the regualtions that kept the practices of regular and investment banks seperate had been kept it would have been a whole lot better for everyone. Sadly the desire to de-regulate overcame sense.

Any attempt to defend against the rest of the points?

On another note, can you not see any issues around removing regulations on essential services such as electricity and water? When they fuck up, as they inevitably will under unregulated free-market economics, the devastation they can have both economically and socially are huge. These activities require huge amounts of investment capital for long term development and maintainance. Without the stability of a regulated market the incentive to invest in utilities vanishes (low returns, but far safer than average investments due the the strong regulations). Without a strong regulatory framework, investing money in utilities becomes fiscal idiocy. The money leaves, the systems fall appart and when they do, so does the rest of the economy. To make it even worse, restoring things like gas and water supply networks is massively expensive and very time consuming.

2009-12-18 21:08:51

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5610|London, England

PureFodder wrote:
Look at the latest bubble. If the regualtions that kept the practices of regular and investment banks seperate had been kept it would have been a whole lot better for everyone. Sadly the desire to de-regulate overcame sense.

Any attempt to defend against the rest of the points?

On another note, can you not see any issues around removing regulations on essential services such as electricity and water? When they fuck up, as they inevitably will under unregulated free-market economics, the devastation they can have both economically and socially are huge. These activities require huge amounts of investment capital for long term development and maintainance. Without the stability of a regulated market the incentive to invest in utilities vanishes (low returns, but far safer than average investments due the the strong regulations). Without a strong regulatory framework, investing money in utilities becomes fiscal idiocy. The money leaves, the systems fall appart and when they do, so does the rest of the economy. To make it even worse, restoring things like gas and water supply networks is massively expensive and very time consuming.

I thought utilities were a rather obvious exception. Local monopolies are rather impossible to get around. You're not going to have three different power companies transporting electricity over the same poles, nor are you going to have three different water systems flowing under the streets. Not only would it be really messy and ugly, it's just not economically realistic. Because of the monopoly, standards must be sanctioned and maintained by the people who really don't have a choice in using the service.

Where competition is available, there is no need to regulate. It can and should be the personal responsibility of those purchasing the goods to monitor the companies they are working with. Why anyone would blindly take a loan or deposit money with a bank they didn't understand or trust is beyond me. I happen to think most people would choose to keep their savings account with an investment bank because they are far more likely to get a higher interest rate. Nothing is free, however, and you would have to accept a certain level of risk while doing this.

2009-12-18 21:28:17

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|6968

JohnG@lt wrote:
PureFodder wrote:
Look at the latest bubble. If the regualtions that kept the practices of regular and investment banks seperate had been kept it would have been a whole lot better for everyone. Sadly the desire to de-regulate overcame sense.

Any attempt to defend against the rest of the points?

On another note, can you not see any issues around removing regulations on essential services such as electricity and water? When they fuck up, as they inevitably will under unregulated free-market economics, the devastation they can have both economically and socially are huge. These activities require huge amounts of investment capital for long term development and maintainance. Without the stability of a regulated market the incentive to invest in utilities vanishes (low returns, but far safer than average investments due the the strong regulations). Without a strong regulatory framework, investing money in utilities becomes fiscal idiocy. The money leaves, the systems fall appart and when they do, so does the rest of the economy. To make it even worse, restoring things like gas and water supply networks is massively expensive and very time consuming.
I thought utilities were a rather obvious exception. Local monopolies are rather impossible to get around. You're not going to have three different power companies transporting electricity over the same poles, nor are you going to have three different water systems flowing under the streets. Not only would it be really messy and ugly, it's just not economically realistic. Because of the monopoly, standards must be sanctioned and maintained by the people who really don't have a choice in using the service.

Where competition is available, there is no need to regulate. It can and should be the personal responsibility of those purchasing the goods to monitor the companies they are working with. Why anyone would blindly take a loan or deposit money with a bank they didn't understand or trust is beyond me. I happen to think most people would choose to keep their savings account with an investment bank because they are far more likely to get a higher interest rate. Nothing is free, however, and you would have to accept a certain level of risk while doing this.

There is no one size fit all economic system. Sure some markets don't need to be regulated (video games, movies, music etc). On the financial sector however, companies will do whatever they can to show how "great" their stocks are. Sure most people who invest and didn't do research are idiots, but the after shocks are way too great and would affect more than just them (Great Depression/ Recent recession).

There will be risk to everything, its just how large will the risk affect.

2009-12-19 00:27:26

Diesel_dyk: Object in mirror will feel larger than it appears; +178|6246|Truthistan

Turquoise wrote:
Diesel, I normally agree with you, but you seem to have contradicted yourself in part of your post here.

First, you said the following...

Diesel_dyk wrote:
One thing that's become really apparent to me over the past few months is the prevasive nature of corruption in the senate. These guys are publically basking in the glory of their corruption. IMO it must have to do with the length of their terms in the senate compared with the house. And I also blame the moronic electorate who pull the lever on the ticket because they want to be a team party member.
Then, you said this...

Diesel_dyk wrote:
One thing is for sure, if health care passes without a public option for everyone, and cap and trade passes... I'm going to pull the lever on the GOP ticket next time. If I'm going to pay higher taxes I want to see something in return... otherwise I'll vote for the do nothing party that won't tax me for doing nothing.
In effect, you just reacted in the way you criticized earlier in your post. Voting for one party or another isn't going to solve anything. Vote according to the candidate.

While I agree with you that Congress has plenty of corrupt motherfuckers in it, the current strife in getting healthcare policies passed is actually a good thing in one respect -- it shows that the Democratic Party isn't monolithic. There is clearly a huge difference between Blue Dog Democrats and people like Nancy Pelosi. While I too am annoyed at how watered down this bill is becoming, I have to admit that having a variety of viewpoints within the Democratic party is much more preferable than what the GOP leadership is currently attempting to do to its moderates.

So again, this really shouldn't be about parties because candidates often vary widely in their views on many issues, even when certain party leaders try to homogenize their respective parties.

True enough, you should vote for the candidate based on issues. What I was refering to in the beginning was that people will vote for one single party their entire life whether that party is actually passing laws that are in that persons interest or not. In that case you get people in the seante for 30, 40, 50 years and then their son becomes heir to the throne... and then you get all this obivously corrupt legislation that harms teh country and harms the people and its not only sad its ridiculous. If these guys don't agree to term limits, the people should impose term limits on them by conciously shifting their votes to prevent senate squatters.

In the second part of the post I was referring to the way the financial and healthcare reform are looking and that we are likely to get higher taxes and little more than a forced private for profit health insurance rammed down our throats. Its a worst case scenerio and that mandate will cause increased costs which we will bear. So taxes are going up AND health insurance premiums are going to go up. And the leadership in Dems appears to be basking in thier newly found wealth of power while selling us all down the river. The insurance companies are going to win and the financial companies are going to win and we are all going to suffer now and in the future because of it. And then these is cap and trade... that hasn't really come up yet and I imagine we will have a huge push on that garbage in 2010.

I have to tell you that when I read the OP article, I was pissed, its one thing to affect policy and its another for Geithner to push 115 pages of loopholes for the benefit of the financial industry. His ability to do that has to come from agreement of the Dem leadership. So, when you have a crisis of leadership like this then the only way to cuff these assholes down is to smack them by voting the other way, just like in 2008. IMO in 2010, I think we will see a vascillation from pulling the blue levers to pulling the red lever. For me it would be a change from picking and choosing candidates to punishing all dems because in the end it will be their own damn fault. And the only one that makes any sense in this is Howard Dean, as head of the party he can see that if the Dems continue to corrupt their own policies they are going to be slapped right back to minority status in 2010. I predict that if cap and trade passes, energy prices will rise and as a result PBO will lose in 2012 if he runs at all.

And like I said, if the choice is between doing nothing for me and raising my taxes OR doing nothing for me and not rasing my taxes, then there really isn't a choice there at all when I analyze what is in my self interest.

2009-12-19 01:12:59

Varegg: Support fanatic :-); +2,206|7062|Nårvei

It seems to me Diesel that you believe your half of the politicians in Washington isn't equally as corrupt ...

One problem in US politics is that the populace no longer trusts their representatives and the representatives know it hence why they grab as much as they can in the time they have available ...

Doing favors to others as a politician will get you a good job when you retire from politics ...

Wait behind the line ..............................................................

2009-12-19 09:59:01

Diesel_dyk: Object in mirror will feel larger than it appears; +178|6246|Truthistan

Varegg wrote:
It seems to me Diesel that you believe your half of the politicians in Washington isn't equally as corrupt ...

One problem in US politics is that the populace no longer trusts their representatives and the representatives know it hence why they grab as much as they can in the time they have available ...

Doing favors to others as a politician will get you a good job when you retire from politics ...

If you mean my half as in the ones that are newly elected for the first time and haven't begun to feel entitled to power then I agree. For me I won't hold a party line because they are all corrupt and the longer they are in power the more corrupt they become. With news like the op article I am really getting the feeling that these guys pulling the two step where they get a camera op and tell us that everything will be "better" and then they are actively making things "better" for financial companies and health insurance companies.

I can see all this reform going really really badly. To me this country functions best when you have a democrat in the whitehouse because then you have a person liberally interpreting the laws. And you have the GOP in control of congress, but without a super majority, because then you get some fiscal discipline in the laws that are made. When one party controls everything, it simply means we get crony capitalism and higher debt because people who seek higher office are power seekers and those type of people are petty, greedy and selfish and these people actively look to trade our tax money to get themselves more power.

People elected PBO because they thought they were getting Mr. Smith as in Mr. Smith goes to Washington. By the actions of Geithner and others, its now becoming apparent we got something else.

2009-12-19 10:12:51

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5610|London, England

Diesel_dyk wrote:
If you mean my half as in the ones that are newly elected for the first time and haven't begun to feel entitled to power then I agree. For me I won't hold a party line because they are all corrupt and the longer they are in power the more corrupt they become. With news like the op article I am really getting the feeling that these guys pulling the two step where they get a camera op and tell us that everything will be "better" and then they are actively making things "better" for financial companies and health insurance companies.

I can see all this reform going really really badly. To me this country functions best when you have a democrat in the whitehouse because then you have a person liberally interpreting the laws. And you have the GOP in control of congress, but without a super majority, because then you get some fiscal discipline in the laws that are made. When one party controls everything, it simply means we get crony capitalism and higher debt because people who seek higher office are power seekers and those type of people are petty, greedy and selfish and these people actively look to trade our tax money to get themselves more power.

People elected PBO because they thought they were getting Mr. Smith as in Mr. Smith goes to Washington. By the actions of Geithner and others, its now becoming apparent we got something else.

There were plenty of warning signs that he was no Mr. Smith but they were ignored because the source of the information and accusations came from news outlets that people of a certain political persuasion discount out of hand... Lesson learned? I wouldn't count on it.

I trust no one that comes out of Harvard. The school breeds elitism and a superiority among it's student body out of all relation to their actual talents and skills. God complex doesn't even begin to describe it.

2009-12-19 10:27:28

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6657|North Carolina

Diesel_dyk wrote:
True enough, you should vote for the candidate based on issues. What I was refering to in the beginning was that people will vote for one single party their entire life whether that party is actually passing laws that are in that persons interest or not. In that case you get people in the seante for 30, 40, 50 years and then their son becomes heir to the throne... and then you get all this obivously corrupt legislation that harms teh country and harms the people and its not only sad its ridiculous. If these guys don't agree to term limits, the people should impose term limits on them by conciously shifting their votes to prevent senate squatters.

Absolutely. We should have a national referendum to pass term limits.

Although, I have to give the Republicans credit for one thing. Jim DeMint and some other Republicans have been pushing to pass term limits via a Constitutional Amendment. I applaud this effort, although I doubt it will pass.

http://demint.senate.gov/public/index.c … 379823cf1c

Diesel_dyk wrote:
In the second part of the post I was referring to the way the financial and healthcare reform are looking and that we are likely to get higher taxes and little more than a forced private for profit health insurance rammed down our throats. Its a worst case scenerio and that mandate will cause increased costs which we will bear. So taxes are going up AND health insurance premiums are going to go up. And the leadership in Dems appears to be basking in thier newly found wealth of power while selling us all down the river. The insurance companies are going to win and the financial companies are going to win and we are all going to suffer now and in the future because of it. And then these is cap and trade... that hasn't really come up yet and I imagine we will have a huge push on that garbage in 2010.

Well, if it's any consolation, I agree. I believe that passing this bill may be a bad idea after all given its current state.

Diesel_dyk wrote:
I have to tell you that when I read the OP article, I was pissed, its one thing to affect policy and its another for Geithner to push 115 pages of loopholes for the benefit of the financial industry. His ability to do that has to come from agreement of the Dem leadership. So, when you have a crisis of leadership like this then the only way to cuff these assholes down is to smack them by voting the other way, just like in 2008. IMO in 2010, I think we will see a vascillation from pulling the blue levers to pulling the red lever. For me it would be a change from picking and choosing candidates to punishing all dems because in the end it will be their own damn fault. And the only one that makes any sense in this is Howard Dean, as head of the party he can see that if the Dems continue to corrupt their own policies they are going to be slapped right back to minority status in 2010. I predict that if cap and trade passes, energy prices will rise and as a result PBO will lose in 2012 if he runs at all.

And like I said, if the choice is between doing nothing for me and raising my taxes OR doing nothing for me and not rasing my taxes, then there really isn't a choice there at all when I analyze what is in my self interest.

Well, the problem with the past Republican leadership is that they spent a lot more than they got from tax revenue. Admittedly, the same is now true of Dems, but at least they are trying to account for it some by passing tax increases.

Either way, we're facing a tremendous amount of national debt, which is why I believe the only surefire way out is to move to another country. I highly suggest moving to Canada -- that's where I'll be within the next 10 years. I just have to continue making preparations within my company to get a transfer to Mississauga.

JohnG@lt wrote:
I trust no one that comes out of Harvard. The school breeds elitism and a superiority among it's student body out of all relation to their actual talents and skills. God complex doesn't even begin to describe it.

The same could be said of Yale.

Last edited by Turquoise (2009-12-19 10:28:37)

2009-12-23 03:10:38

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6663|'Murka

Turquoise wrote:
JohnG@lt wrote:
I trust no one that comes out of Harvard. The school breeds elitism and a superiority among it's student body out of all relation to their actual talents and skills. God complex doesn't even begin to describe it.
The same could be said of Yale.

And Princeton.

And Brown.

And <insert Ivy League School Name>.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2009-12-23 03:36:34

Varegg: Support fanatic :-); +2,206|7062|Nårvei

Some underlying trust issues it seems have infected the US population ... you don't trust your leaders, politicians or scholars ...

Wait behind the line ..............................................................

2009-12-23 03:37:38

LividBovine: The Year of the Cow!; +175|6632|MN

Varegg wrote:
Some underlying trust issues it seems have infected the US population ... you don't trust your leaders, politicians or scholars ...

Yep. Pretty much nailed it there Varegg.

"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation" - Barack Obama (a freshman senator from Illinios)

2009-12-23 04:37:42

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,815|6358|eXtreme to the maX

No-one should ever trust politicians, or underestimate the importance of a free press in keeping them honest.

Elite institutions do tend to breed elitism, and nepotism, applies to many organisations besides Universities.
Really its surprising the college old boy network hasn't been stamped on in the same way as racism, since it is a form of discrimination.
Strangely most of the people I've dealt with from Cambridge have been AOK, those from Oxford total arses.

Thats one thing I like about Australia, no-one cares where you went to University or who your Daddy plays golf with.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2009-12-23 04:38:09)

Fuck Israel

2009-12-23 04:50:56

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6663|'Murka

Varegg wrote:
Some underlying trust issues it seems have infected the US population ... you don't trust your leaders, politicians or scholars ...

Or media.

2009-12-23 05:01:07

#100

Varegg: Support fanatic :-); +2,206|7062|Nårvei

FEOS wrote:
Varegg wrote:
Some underlying trust issues it seems have infected the US population ... you don't trust your leaders, politicians or scholars ...
Or media.

Nobody trusts the media so that's more of a global phenomenon and not directly linked to the US populace so I left that out ...

Wait behind the line ..............................................................

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5

Index »
Community »
Debate and Serious Talk »
The results of regulation... in all it's glory.

Board footer

Jump to

BF2S Forums The results of regulation... in all it's glory.

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Varegg wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Diesel_dyk wrote:

Diesel_dyk wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Diesel_dyk wrote:

Diesel_dyk wrote:

Varegg wrote:

Diesel_dyk wrote:

Diesel_dyk wrote:

Diesel_dyk wrote:

Diesel_dyk wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Varegg wrote:

Varegg wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Varegg wrote:

Board footer