again with your labels. Grow up dude, the world isnt full of greasers and socs'.
Tu Stultus Es
EDIT: This is in response to John. I didn't want to split my post up with his quote.
If you don't have money, it's hard to move. I don't see it so much as coddling as it is damage control. You could set up the most Darwinian system possible, but in consequence, you'll have a lot more crime.
In many cases, I would agree that unions are an obstacle to economic progress. I think we can agree that this is the case with automakers. There are other fields where maybe having unions would be a good thing. Walmart is very anti-union, but with the way they treat their workers, they really need a union.
Nevertheless, the best case scenario is to have an employer wise enough to be able to treat its workers well while still being sustainable in a fiscal sense. I think this is more likely to occur with jobs where the skill level is higher, so I think a good starting point would be to better educate people so that they are more likely to get higher skilled jobs.
While it is true that engineers will always be a small segment of the labor force, it will be a larger segment under a socialized system. If you don't believe me, then observe the differences in our labor force and that of more socialized countries in terms of education. I think you'll find that a higher proportion of the Canadian populace is higher skilled, whether it's engineering, medicine, or something else of higher skill.
Getting an English degree isn't a bad thing if you plan to teach. We'll always need teachers. However, getting a degree in something like art is probably something better reserved for rich kids, so I sort of agree with you on that point.
When it comes to your generalizations about the younger generations, you're starting to sound like an old man. Admittedly at 30, I have a few of those tendencies myself, but I try to avoid thinking like that because it's not logical. For the most part, people's behavior is dictated by circumstance. We have free will, but adversity, more often than not, is what inspires people to try harder. While this somewhat supports your viewpoint, there is a flipside to this.
Materialism is what currently dominates our culture. We focus too much on the trappings of success and not enough on what it takes to get success. This is exacerbated by easy credit. Why work for your goods if you can just borrow the money for it? Buy now, pay later.
In order to change this mindset, it's better to have a system that makes the financial side of school easier, while making sure that standards for grades slowly rise over time. The current problem is that working during school splits one's efforts between studies and work. This is not an optimal environment for scholastic success. The pressure and emphasis should solely be on achievement, not bills.
Once you exit school, that's where finances should be the emphasis. So, adversity is best when focused on one thing. In this case, the adversity is the difficulty of classes. Finances serve as a distraction from success when one is in school.
If you don't have money, it's hard to move. I don't see it so much as coddling as it is damage control. You could set up the most Darwinian system possible, but in consequence, you'll have a lot more crime.
In many cases, I would agree that unions are an obstacle to economic progress. I think we can agree that this is the case with automakers. There are other fields where maybe having unions would be a good thing. Walmart is very anti-union, but with the way they treat their workers, they really need a union.
Nevertheless, the best case scenario is to have an employer wise enough to be able to treat its workers well while still being sustainable in a fiscal sense. I think this is more likely to occur with jobs where the skill level is higher, so I think a good starting point would be to better educate people so that they are more likely to get higher skilled jobs.
While it is true that engineers will always be a small segment of the labor force, it will be a larger segment under a socialized system. If you don't believe me, then observe the differences in our labor force and that of more socialized countries in terms of education. I think you'll find that a higher proportion of the Canadian populace is higher skilled, whether it's engineering, medicine, or something else of higher skill.
Getting an English degree isn't a bad thing if you plan to teach. We'll always need teachers. However, getting a degree in something like art is probably something better reserved for rich kids, so I sort of agree with you on that point.
When it comes to your generalizations about the younger generations, you're starting to sound like an old man. Admittedly at 30, I have a few of those tendencies myself, but I try to avoid thinking like that because it's not logical. For the most part, people's behavior is dictated by circumstance. We have free will, but adversity, more often than not, is what inspires people to try harder. While this somewhat supports your viewpoint, there is a flipside to this.
Materialism is what currently dominates our culture. We focus too much on the trappings of success and not enough on what it takes to get success. This is exacerbated by easy credit. Why work for your goods if you can just borrow the money for it? Buy now, pay later.
In order to change this mindset, it's better to have a system that makes the financial side of school easier, while making sure that standards for grades slowly rise over time. The current problem is that working during school splits one's efforts between studies and work. This is not an optimal environment for scholastic success. The pressure and emphasis should solely be on achievement, not bills.
Once you exit school, that's where finances should be the emphasis. So, adversity is best when focused on one thing. In this case, the adversity is the difficulty of classes. Finances serve as a distraction from success when one is in school.
Last edited by Turquoise (2009-12-26 16:41:56)
You can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't tell people how they should behave with their money and teach them it's inherent value when you're handing them a $40k+ education on a silver platter. What's valued more? Something earned or something received as a handout? I value my own education much more highly than almost all of my classmates because my being there, sitting in that class, was predicated on me spending a year in a foreign land and potentially dying.Turquoise wrote:
EDIT: This is in response to John. I didn't want to split my post up with his quote.
If you don't have money, it's hard to move. I don't see it so much as coddling as it is damage control. You could set up the most Darwinian system possible, but in consequence, you'll have a lot more crime.
In many cases, I would agree that unions are an obstacle to economic progress. I think we can agree that this is the case with automakers. There are other fields where maybe having unions would be a good thing. Walmart is very anti-union, but with the way they treat their workers, they really need a union.
Nevertheless, the best case scenario is to have an employer wise enough to be able to treat its workers well while still being sustainable in a fiscal sense. I think this is more likely to occur with jobs where the skill level is higher, so I think a good starting point would be to better educate people so that they are more likely to get higher skilled jobs.
While it is true that engineers will always be a small segment of the labor force, it will be a larger segment under a socialized system. If you don't believe me, then observe the differences in our labor force and that of more socialized countries in terms of education. I think you'll find that a higher proportion of the Canadian populace is higher skilled, whether it's engineering, medicine, or something else of higher skill.
Getting an English degree isn't a bad thing if you plan to teach. We'll always need teachers. However, getting a degree in something like art is probably something better reserved for rich kids, so I sort of agree with you on that point.
When it comes to your generalizations about the younger generations, you're starting to sound like an old man. Admittedly at 30, I have a few of those tendencies myself, but I try to avoid thinking like that because it's not logical. For the most part, people's behavior is dictated by circumstance. We have free will, but adversity, more often than not, is what inspires people to try harder. While this somewhat supports your viewpoint, there is a flipside to this.
Materialism is what currently dominates our culture. We focus too much on the trappings of success and not enough on what it takes to get success. This is exacerbated by easy credit. Why work for your goods if you can just borrow the money for it? Buy now, pay later.
In order to change this mindset, it's better to have a system that makes the financial side of school easier, while making sure that standards for grades slowly rise over time. The current problem is that working during school splits one's efforts between studies and work. This is not an optimal environment for scholastic success. The pressure and emphasis should solely be on achievement, not bills.
Once you exit school, that's where finances should be the emphasis. So, adversity is best when focused on one thing. In this case, the adversity is the difficulty of classes. Finances serve as a distraction from success when one is in school.
Socializing anything removes it's intrinsic value. You're smart enough to understand this but you keep doing mental gymnastics to tell yourself that it in fact works. Now, if you were to say that you would like to see more scholarships offered at the university level, I would agree with you. It would be nice, and it would've been earned by the recipient by working hard in grade school. And no, you don't have to be the child of wealthy parents to excel in school.
"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
-Frederick Bastiat
It's not a handout if you still have to earn the degree. For a genuine education, you have to work hard to get a degree. You know this, because you said it yourself earlier. So, the degree is earned whether it's paid out of pocket or not, because there's still work involved.
The idea that education should only be available through inherited wealth, signing up for the military, or paying off long term loans is outdated when looking at how things work in most other First World nations. I used materialism as a talking point because it relates to the fixation we have on disposable income, whether earned or borrowed. This also applies to having to take out an education loan.
Studying, in and of itself, should be work enough for attaining necessary skills. Throw in experience with an internship, and you have a recipe for success through focused discipline.
"Socializing anything removes it's intrinsic value. You're smart enough to understand this but you keep doing mental gymnastics to tell yourself that it in fact works."
Oh really? So, socialized roads are a bad thing? Socialized police? A socialized military? Socialized fire departments? The only mental gymnastics involved here is your unwillingness to accept that socialization works on multiple levels in modern life. Whenever I come up with an example, you always treat it like an exception.
So again, if the system no longer had a focus on loans and simply a focus on scholastic effort, we'd have a more educated workforce. The only way you could justifiably assume this wouldn't work is to assume that Americans are somehow lazier than all other First World citizens.
The idea that education should only be available through inherited wealth, signing up for the military, or paying off long term loans is outdated when looking at how things work in most other First World nations. I used materialism as a talking point because it relates to the fixation we have on disposable income, whether earned or borrowed. This also applies to having to take out an education loan.
Studying, in and of itself, should be work enough for attaining necessary skills. Throw in experience with an internship, and you have a recipe for success through focused discipline.
"Socializing anything removes it's intrinsic value. You're smart enough to understand this but you keep doing mental gymnastics to tell yourself that it in fact works."
Oh really? So, socialized roads are a bad thing? Socialized police? A socialized military? Socialized fire departments? The only mental gymnastics involved here is your unwillingness to accept that socialization works on multiple levels in modern life. Whenever I come up with an example, you always treat it like an exception.
So again, if the system no longer had a focus on loans and simply a focus on scholastic effort, we'd have a more educated workforce. The only way you could justifiably assume this wouldn't work is to assume that Americans are somehow lazier than all other First World citizens.
^ThisTurquoise wrote:
It's not a handout if you still have to earn the degree. For a genuine education, you have to work hard to get a degree. You know this, because you said it yourself earlier. So, the degree is earned whether it's paid out of pocket or not, because there's still work involved.
The idea that education should only be available through inherited wealth, signing up for the military, or paying off long term loans is outdated when looking at how things work in most other First World nations. I used materialism as a talking point because it relates to the fixation we have on disposable income, whether earned or borrowed. This also applies to having to take out an education loan.
I doubt most people will go through a four year degree because it's free. Shit even high school is free and drop out rates in certain states are fucking unacceptable.
Socializing education simply gives everyone a more equal chance, not who your daddy is etc. There are so many talented kids who get accepted into the Ivies but don't go due to monetary reasons.
One problem I see with American economics it always talk about the consumers, and never the producers. To maintain economic power, you must remain a high producer. High cost of low prices yo.
Hey Turq,
Education wouldn't be so expensive if everyone didn't go to college. There use to be a time when a summer job could pay for college, now the high paying job you plan to get with your education, if you get it, is now essential to paying back your huge student loans. The demand pushes up cost, and easy money helps demand become excessive. That just further exacerbates the problem because every year college tuition becomes more expensive and you have to borrow increasingly more thus putting more long-term burden on college students. High prices also keep poorer individuals from getting education unless they can get assistance and rich kids will always be able to afford it. I also remember reading somewhere arguing college may not always be worth it and I agree, until prices fall.
Sort of reminds me of the housing bubble. Anyways, the fact that colleges are pretty much guaranteed students to fill their capacity means they can inflate the cost of schooling and keep it that way. True supply and demand will crush over-priced colleges and you'll see more competitiveness to provide better education at a better cost. If we need more engineers, they'll appear. Jobs are finite, especially higher paying jobs. People compete for them, and those seeking those jobs will work hardest to get the education that requires it, especially if they are spending money that is theirs and not from some 'free' credit pipeline. Until then, we will see plenty of misdirected and undeserving kids in college today.
The bigger picture also tells us that our economy has to change in order to have more engineers and such. Producing, mining, manufacturing and other wealth creating sectors will increase our demand for higher educated people. We lose those jobs every month, so even if we did have much more engineers as you want, where are they going to go if the jobs aren't here? But hey you're right, we're materialistic and want to spend, not produce. I guess that's why we are in a recession.
Education wouldn't be so expensive if everyone didn't go to college. There use to be a time when a summer job could pay for college, now the high paying job you plan to get with your education, if you get it, is now essential to paying back your huge student loans. The demand pushes up cost, and easy money helps demand become excessive. That just further exacerbates the problem because every year college tuition becomes more expensive and you have to borrow increasingly more thus putting more long-term burden on college students. High prices also keep poorer individuals from getting education unless they can get assistance and rich kids will always be able to afford it. I also remember reading somewhere arguing college may not always be worth it and I agree, until prices fall.
Sort of reminds me of the housing bubble. Anyways, the fact that colleges are pretty much guaranteed students to fill their capacity means they can inflate the cost of schooling and keep it that way. True supply and demand will crush over-priced colleges and you'll see more competitiveness to provide better education at a better cost. If we need more engineers, they'll appear. Jobs are finite, especially higher paying jobs. People compete for them, and those seeking those jobs will work hardest to get the education that requires it, especially if they are spending money that is theirs and not from some 'free' credit pipeline. Until then, we will see plenty of misdirected and undeserving kids in college today.
The bigger picture also tells us that our economy has to change in order to have more engineers and such. Producing, mining, manufacturing and other wealth creating sectors will increase our demand for higher educated people. We lose those jobs every month, so even if we did have much more engineers as you want, where are they going to go if the jobs aren't here? But hey you're right, we're materialistic and want to spend, not produce. I guess that's why we are in a recession.
Fools. Nothing will be paid by the corporation or millionaire's bottom line. They know how to pass it down to us.
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
Interesting article here:Phrozenbot wrote:
The bigger picture also tells us that our economy has to change in order to have more engineers and such. Producing, mining, manufacturing and other wealth creating sectors will increase our demand for higher educated people.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/op … 5813628220
More in the link.Innovation languishes when money men have the upper hand
Noam Scheiber
A LOT of people talk about reviving the manufacturing sector, which in the US has shed almost one-third of its employees during the past eight years.
But some people ask a slightly different question: Even if you could reclaim a chunk of those blue-collar jobs, would you have the managers you need to supervise them?
It's not obvious that you would. Since 1965, the percentage of graduates of highly ranked business schools who go into consulting and financial services has doubled, from about one-third to about two-thirds.
While some of these consultants and financiers end up in the manufacturing sector, in some respects that's the problem.
Harvard business professor Rakesh Khurana, observes that most of General Motors' top executives in recent decades hailed from a finance rather than an operations background. But these executives were frequently numb to the sorts of innovations that enable high-quality production at low cost.
As Khurana quips, "That's how you end up with GM rather than Toyota."
How did we get to this point? In some sense, it's the result of broad historical and economic forces. Until World War I, the archetypal manufacturing chief executive was production oriented, usually an engineer or inventor. Even as late as the 1930s, business school curriculums focused mostly on production. Khurana notes that many schools during this era had mini-factories on campus to train future managers.
After World War II, large corporations went on acquisition binges and turned themselves into conglomerates. In their landmark Harvard Business Review article from 1980, "Managing our way to economic decline", Robert Hayes and William Abernathy pointed out that the conglomerate structure forced managers to think of their firms as a collection of financial assets, where the goal was to allocate capital efficiently, rather than as makers of specific products, where the goal was to maximise quality and long-term market share.
I've seen and been in enough good companies killed by the money-men.
If you're running almost any kind of company you live and die by the product, little else.
Fuck Israel
Interesting read Dilbert.
I think you're right about some of these people, the money-men, who 'know' everything about financing, accounting, and 'business'. It often takes personal experience from the bottom up to know how things really work and how to improve. Money-men or not, bad/incompetent management can ruin a business. The automakers as the article points out suffered from this, although I think unions helped kill GM.
I think you're right about some of these people, the money-men, who 'know' everything about financing, accounting, and 'business'. It often takes personal experience from the bottom up to know how things really work and how to improve. Money-men or not, bad/incompetent management can ruin a business. The automakers as the article points out suffered from this, although I think unions helped kill GM.
The problem is that these students tended to be overachiever types motivated primarily by salary rather than some lifelong ambition to run a steel mill. And there was a lot more money to be made in finance than manufacturing. A recent paper by economists Thomas Philippon and Ariell Reshef shows that compensation in the finance sector began a sharp, upward trajectory around 1980.
I think fiat currency, central banking, and fiat currency have to do more about the high financing and unsoundness in our economy we see today than what Harvard and Stanford dictate in schools, although they help keep the status quo.No surprise then that, over time, the faculty and curriculum at the Harvards and Stanfords of the world began to evolve. "If you look at the distribution of faculty at leading business schools," Khurana says, "they're mostly in finance. Business schools are responsive to changes in the external environment." Which meant that, even if a student aspired to become a top operations man (or woman) at a big industrial company, the infrastructure to teach them didn't really exist.
Then let's make every kid equal while we're at it. We'll make sure that while they're in the womb that they have at least an IQ of 100. Once born, we'll take the child and place it into a group home for children. This way the child's parents won't be able to teach them things the state defines as less than ideal education, namely religion. Clothing, food and shelter will be provided by the state so that no child has an advantage over any other. All in the name of fairness.Cybargs wrote:
^ThisTurquoise wrote:
It's not a handout if you still have to earn the degree. For a genuine education, you have to work hard to get a degree. You know this, because you said it yourself earlier. So, the degree is earned whether it's paid out of pocket or not, because there's still work involved.
The idea that education should only be available through inherited wealth, signing up for the military, or paying off long term loans is outdated when looking at how things work in most other First World nations. I used materialism as a talking point because it relates to the fixation we have on disposable income, whether earned or borrowed. This also applies to having to take out an education loan.
I doubt most people will go through a four year degree because it's free. Shit even high school is free and drop out rates in certain states are fucking unacceptable.
Socializing education simply gives everyone a more equal chance, not who your daddy is etc. There are so many talented kids who get accepted into the Ivies but don't go due to monetary reasons.
One problem I see with American economics it always talk about the consumers, and never the producers. To maintain economic power, you must remain a high producer. High cost of low prices yo.
Every time you take away a parental responsibility you get a child who doesn't understand what responsibility is. Perfect example? Europeans and their cradle to the grave socialism may make them happy in your eyes, but I see the drive missing in most of them. They may be able to debate Socrates and Sartres with you but is that really important when they can and do choose to live on state welfare their entire lives just because they don't feel like getting a job or they're not motivated to start their own company? When Lehman Brothers was allowed to die a year and a half ago, the EU Central banker commented "We don't even allow a dry cleaners to fail and they allowed one of the largest banks in the world." Sounds good in theory I guess. Enjoy it while it lasts because Europe as we know it won't survive our generation. They're breeding themselves into a historic footnote.
"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
-Frederick Bastiat
Hahaha oh wow. You're serious with that post aren't you, Galt?
From someone who has gone through a 4 year university degree in an omg socialist concept of the government pays my student costs upfront while I can get my education, and pay back those fees interest free when I am earning an income, I am certainly grateful.
I did not burden my parents with tuition fees. I wasn't forced into employment to financially struggle for 4 years and balance full time education plus employment. I certainly don't feel coddled by the system either. I still had to earn my way into the university through school marks.
I guess that it isn't fair someone like me was able to move up in the world, huh?
From someone who has gone through a 4 year university degree in an omg socialist concept of the government pays my student costs upfront while I can get my education, and pay back those fees interest free when I am earning an income, I am certainly grateful.
I did not burden my parents with tuition fees. I wasn't forced into employment to financially struggle for 4 years and balance full time education plus employment. I certainly don't feel coddled by the system either. I still had to earn my way into the university through school marks.
I guess that it isn't fair someone like me was able to move up in the world, huh?
Where was your parents motivation to save up money for your college tuition? Were they delighted that the responsibility as a parent was lifted off their shoulders? Did you receive clothing from the state too? Food? Were you just a toy to be played with?AussieReaper wrote:
Hahaha oh wow. You're serious with that post aren't you, Galt?
From someone who has gone through a 4 year university degree in an omg socialist concept of the government pays my student costs upfront while I can get my education, and pay back those fees interest free when I am earning an income, I am certainly grateful.
I did not burden my parents with tuition fees. I wasn't forced into employment to financially struggle for 4 years and balance full time education plus employment. I certainly don't feel coddled by the system either. I still had to earn my way into the university through school marks.
I guess that it isn't fair someone like me was able to move up in the world, huh?
"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
-Frederick Bastiat
So if Europe won't "survive" this generation I assume America won't by your massively insightful, thought provoking predictions? Reply soon Nostradamus.JohnG@lt wrote:
Then let's make every kid equal while we're at it. We'll make sure that while they're in the womb that they have at least an IQ of 100. Once born, we'll take the child and place it into a group home for children. This way the child's parents won't be able to teach them things the state defines as less than ideal education, namely religion. Clothing, food and shelter will be provided by the state so that no child has an advantage over any other. All in the name of fairness.Cybargs wrote:
^ThisTurquoise wrote:
It's not a handout if you still have to earn the degree. For a genuine education, you have to work hard to get a degree. You know this, because you said it yourself earlier. So, the degree is earned whether it's paid out of pocket or not, because there's still work involved.
The idea that education should only be available through inherited wealth, signing up for the military, or paying off long term loans is outdated when looking at how things work in most other First World nations. I used materialism as a talking point because it relates to the fixation we have on disposable income, whether earned or borrowed. This also applies to having to take out an education loan.
I doubt most people will go through a four year degree because it's free. Shit even high school is free and drop out rates in certain states are fucking unacceptable.
Socializing education simply gives everyone a more equal chance, not who your daddy is etc. There are so many talented kids who get accepted into the Ivies but don't go due to monetary reasons.
One problem I see with American economics it always talk about the consumers, and never the producers. To maintain economic power, you must remain a high producer. High cost of low prices yo.
Every time you take away a parental responsibility you get a child who doesn't understand what responsibility is. Perfect example? Europeans and their cradle to the grave socialism may make them happy in your eyes, but I see the drive missing in most of them. They may be able to debate Socrates and Sartres with you but is that really important when they can and do choose to live on state welfare their entire lives just because they don't feel like getting a job or they're not motivated to start their own company? When Lehman Brothers was allowed to die a year and a half ago, the EU Central banker commented "We don't even allow a dry cleaners to fail and they allowed one of the largest banks in the world." Sounds good in theory I guess. Enjoy it while it lasts because Europe as we know it won't survive our generation. They're breeding themselves into a historic footnote.
My higher education is not their responsibility and imo they have done enough. No I did not receive clothing and food from the state, what an idiotic statement to make.JohnG@lt wrote:
Where was your parents motivation to save up money for your college tuition? Were they delighted that the responsibility as a parent was lifted off their shoulders? Did you receive clothing from the state too? Food? Were you just a toy to be played with?AussieReaper wrote:
Hahaha oh wow. You're serious with that post aren't you, Galt?
From someone who has gone through a 4 year university degree in an omg socialist concept of the government pays my student costs upfront while I can get my education, and pay back those fees interest free when I am earning an income, I am certainly grateful.
I did not burden my parents with tuition fees. I wasn't forced into employment to financially struggle for 4 years and balance full time education plus employment. I certainly don't feel coddled by the system either. I still had to earn my way into the university through school marks.
I guess that it isn't fair someone like me was able to move up in the world, huh?
Australia can see the incentives of having a highly skilled work force and decided to shoulder that responsibility not only out of their interest but mine as well.
I guess we can't all remain serfs.
Not their responsibility? What a world you live in. In the world I live in a parent is responsible for setting their child up for success in this world and that means helping them pay for the education they need to succeed.AussieReaper wrote:
My higher education is not their responsibility and imo they have done enough. No I did not receive clothing and food from the state, what an idiotic statement to make.JohnG@lt wrote:
Where was your parents motivation to save up money for your college tuition? Were they delighted that the responsibility as a parent was lifted off their shoulders? Did you receive clothing from the state too? Food? Were you just a toy to be played with?AussieReaper wrote:
Hahaha oh wow. You're serious with that post aren't you, Galt?
From someone who has gone through a 4 year university degree in an omg socialist concept of the government pays my student costs upfront while I can get my education, and pay back those fees interest free when I am earning an income, I am certainly grateful.
I did not burden my parents with tuition fees. I wasn't forced into employment to financially struggle for 4 years and balance full time education plus employment. I certainly don't feel coddled by the system either. I still had to earn my way into the university through school marks.
I guess that it isn't fair someone like me was able to move up in the world, huh?
Australia can see the incentives of having a highly skilled work force and decided to shoulder that responsibility not only out of their interest but mine as well.
I guess we can't all remain serfs.
"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
-Frederick Bastiat
At best, socialism maintains the status quo for living standards. It can not increase them. Entropy dictates that over time you will decline. It may be gradual, or it may be severe, but your current economic policies coupled with your socialist lifestyle means you are destined for obscurity in just a few generations.jord wrote:
So if Europe won't "survive" this generation I assume America won't by your massively insightful, thought provoking predictions? Reply soon Nostradamus.
Socialism is adopted when the people say 'Hey, I like what I have and I want to keep my lifestyle this way but I really don't feel like working too hard at it'. They adopt super-conservative economic policies and it precludes them from being competitive in the long run. Enjoy.
Every society that has 'gone conservative' in history has failed. The biggest example of this was Rome when it got fat and lazy and stopped working because the people felt 'entitled' to Romes past glory. Just like you can not win a defensive war, you can not play defense economically and expect to win.
Last edited by JohnG@lt (2009-12-27 09:56:12)
"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
-Frederick Bastiat
I don't know where you get the idea that Europe is some sort of mass Socialist continent. I doubt you could call most countries here Socialist in such a pure way like that. More idiot labelling going on though, next
I'd call England, Germany, Scandinavia, Spain and France socialist.Mekstizzle wrote:
I don't know where you get the idea that Europe is some sort of mass Socialist continent. I doubt you could call most countries here Socialist in such a pure way like that. More idiot labelling going on though, next
"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
-Frederick Bastiat
Chip on your shoulder eh?JohnG@lt wrote:
Where was your parents motivation to save up money for your college tuition? Were they delighted that the responsibility as a parent was lifted off their shoulders? Did you receive clothing from the state too? Food? Were you just a toy to be played with?
The system for me was about a quarter of school leavers were smart enough to go to University, tuition costs were zero, I had to pay half my living costs since my parents earned more than average so it was deemed they can contribute.
Through my higher taxes I've more than repaid my fees.
I don't have a problem with the above, it maes sense for the smarter kids to be able to study, regardless of how rich Daddy is.
I think part of the problem in the US is only the rich can really afford education and opportunity, the greed gene is being selected and propagated.
This is why your industry is in such trouble, all the smart guys are inventing new financial gadgets no-one else understands to get rich andn o-one is actually making anything any more
Fuck Israel
Yeah? It costs me $7,000 per year to attend school. That's hardly breaking the piggy bank. A $28,000 loan for four years of school at a 1% interest rate? Please. College is not expensive to attend unless you're talking about a private college. Even then, the difference in education is in the effort you put in. You don't have to be a genius to attend Harvard and you don't have to attend Harvard to receive the same education at a lower price. The only difference is the bragging rights associated with a piece of paper afterward.Dilbert_X wrote:
Chip on your shoulder eh?JohnG@lt wrote:
Where was your parents motivation to save up money for your college tuition? Were they delighted that the responsibility as a parent was lifted off their shoulders? Did you receive clothing from the state too? Food? Were you just a toy to be played with?
The system for me was about a quarter of school leavers were smart enough to go to University, tuition costs were zero, I had to pay half my living costs since my parents earned more than average so it was deemed they can contribute.
Through my higher taxes I've more than repaid my fees.
I don't have a problem with the above, it maes sense for the smarter kids to be able to study, regardless of how rich Daddy is.
I think part of the problem in the US is only the rich can really afford education and opportunity, the greed gene is being selected and propagated.
This is why your industry is in such trouble, all the smart guys are inventing new financial gadgets no-one else understands to get rich andn o-one is actually making anything any more
"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
-Frederick Bastiat
Plus your living costs presumably.Yeah? It costs me $7,000 per year to attend school.
Which translates to opportunity to some extent, hence the rich can buy opportunity.The only difference is the bragging rights associated with a piece of paper afterward.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2009-12-27 19:17:15)
Fuck Israel
I was 18 when I could start attending university. That makes me an adult and I am pretty sure that makes me old enough to take some personal responsibility.JohnG@lt wrote:
Not their responsibility? What a world you live in. In the world I live in a parent is responsible for setting their child up for success in this world and that means helping them pay for the education they need to succeed.
I'd have thought you'd want to see more personal responsibility...
Last edited by AussieReaper (2009-12-27 19:21:02)
(not picking on you) Funny how two of the big economic powerhouses (by England i'll include GB) are socialist. I thought librul economics are dooomed to failJohnG@lt wrote:
I'd call England, Germany, Scandinavia, Spain and France socialist.Mekstizzle wrote:
I don't know where you get the idea that Europe is some sort of mass Socialist continent. I doubt you could call most countries here Socialist in such a pure way like that. More idiot labelling going on though, next
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
There are 5 state colleges within an hours drive of my parents house. I lived on campus but could've just as easily commuted. Room and board comes out to about $4,000 a semester which is far below what it would cost to rent an apartment and pay for food.Dilbert_X wrote:
Plus your living costs presumably.Yeah? It costs me $7,000 per year to attend school.
Only for lazy HR people.Dilbert_X wrote:
Which translates to opportunity to some extent.The only difference is the bragging rights associated with a piece of paper afterward.
"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
-Frederick Bastiat
And they're both in decline, not ascension. GB has exactly one pillar of economics out of three keeping it afloat (Services, Resource Extraction and Manufacturing make up the trifecta). You better pray your government doesn't allow your banks to destroy themselves because your economy will never recover.FatherTed wrote:
(not picking on you) Funny how two of the big economic powerhouses (by England i'll include GB) are socialist. I thought librul economics are dooomed to failJohnG@lt wrote:
I'd call England, Germany, Scandinavia, Spain and France socialist.Mekstizzle wrote:
I don't know where you get the idea that Europe is some sort of mass Socialist continent. I doubt you could call most countries here Socialist in such a pure way like that. More idiot labelling going on though, next
Last edited by JohnG@lt (2009-12-27 21:24:08)
"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
-Frederick Bastiat