Treasuries are guaranteed and bank accounts are not - unless you mean the FDIC insurance which taxpayers provide for anyway. So no, investors would rather buy government bonds than keep it in banks since risk is lower and return is (supposedly) higher.
And foreign investment is still part of the economy - government borrowing will crowd out the private investment.
I never claimed government spending was good or bad. I claimed it's inefficient and ineffective as economic stimulus.
Really? How come only 18 percent of Japanese polled believe the 2 trillion yen plan by the Aso government will work? A full 71 percent don't think it will do anything to stimulate the economy.
http://www.japaninc.com/jin495_economic_stimulus_package
Government spending does not stimulate the economy. It takes money FROM the economy and redistributes it to politically favored and connected groups. Bastiat recognized this 160 years ago. Keynesian economic stimulation has never worked before, during, or since Keynes lived.
http://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basEss1.html
No, economic competition means it's a substitute good or service. XM and Sirius were created for this very purpose as was the ipod.
Automakers compete directly with every public transport system in the world.
Pro football competes with Desperate Housewives.
The examples are endless.
So explain why the near government monopoly of primary and secondary education has driven the quality of those services to pitiful levels while the competitive higher education institutions in this country are the envy of the world.
DC Schools spend $24,000/student/year for an education nowhere near what that of the local Catholic/charter/for-profit school delivers for a fraction of that cost.
There are always winners and losers in markets - but it's irresponsible to respond in the manner you have. By claiming evidence and providing none you further irresponsible debate.
And by the way, just because the taxpayers foot the bill, that doesn't make something "free".
Yes, while you made wild over-generalizations about what goes on in other countries, you still did not refute the fact corporate income tax policy has an effect on behavior.
If IBMs taxes go down they are able to invest more money and hire more people like you and me to work for them or to pay out as dividends to their shareholders (who will then reinvest them). If a government raises taxes rational actors will move their operations and investments elsewhere as long as the costs of doing so don't exceed the tax benefits. If IBMs taxes become so high that they leave your town/state/country it most certainly will affect you. You can lose your job, businesses and suppliers that benefit from the direct and ancilliary economic activity they provided will suffer, and ALL the tax money associated with all that activity will disappear! This is exactly why Estonia, Ireland, Switzerland, a few dozen other countries around the globe are booming locations of investment, jobs, and wealth creation. Their governments aren't penalizing positive returns on investment. The opposite is also true; jurisdictions with excessive corporate income taxes are seeing low or negative rates of foreign direct investment growth and theie statist governments liek those in Old Europe are screaming for "tax harmonization" to stop the flight of jobs, capital, and talent.
And it's factually inaccurate to say all taxes are created equal. Some have effects on investment (corporate income tax), others on consumption (sales, vat, sin taxes). Other taxes influence all sorts of behavior like tolls, carbon taxes, congestion taxes, etc. Eventually only individuals pay these taxes, but that's a truism with no value to your argument.
And you errantly lumped in health insurance as equivalence to income tax when it's the exact opposite. Employers in the U.S. deduct health insurance expenses from their income and don't pay taxes on that money at all making it part of your compensation. In fact it was specifically designed as a way to pay people more during the obscenely high tax rates in the post WWII era. It's nothing like the socialized medicine of some, but nowhere near "most", nations which actually impose a tax like we do for medicare. Corporations are made to serve the interests of those that own them just like you exist to serve your own interests, as different from mine as they may be.
Of course workers pay the price, silly! The price customers pay is not influenced at all by what the workers are paid. They are two seperate demand curves and while they certainly reflective of one another they are not interchangeable. If the level of productivity with which I operate to meet market demand requires 100 workers I can hire them at the wage level I can afford to pay or not hire them and have unmet demand in the marketplace. In what we call the "long run", the price of the good or service will rise. More than likely what will happen is I will find ways to increase productivity with my fewer workers or a competitor has a comparative advantage (hint: maybe he operates in a jurisdiction with a lower tax rate) will enter the market to meet demand.
There's nothing wrong with my math. If $1 is appropriated from my profits as income tax and in return I pay $1.01 less in salaries as a result of that tax burden, the effect is > 100% (101% in this example).
The discussion was around corporate income tax, not gasoline taxes. The U.S. has the 2nd highest corporate tax rate in the OECD http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/1466.html. The US is fortunate to have a low tax rate on fuel, however I fail to see how that's justification for a confiscatorily (is that a word?) high corporate tax.
Better luck on Tuesday!
McCain is so screwed. He took public funds earlier in his campaign when no one owuld give him any money. Now he's facing the spending limits associated with doing so. His own anti-first amendment legislation is biting him in the ass. Huckabee's campaign is running on vapors.
Paul is the only Republican who seems to be able to consistently raise money on his own. Let's hope for that brokered convention!
Corporate income taxes are always paid for by the employees in the form of lower salaries and less employment. The overhead in compliance with tax laws actually makes the loss over 100%. The US already has one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world (~42% when averaging federal, state, and local taxes). Corporations exist to make money and if they can legally avoid taxes you should be grateful; they are able to employ workers and pay them more so you don't have to subsidize them with your tax dollars.
Free market types don't like government sanctioned monopolies or protected markets either. The entrenched special interests like the telcos and their rent-seeking are just as repulsive to us "free-market types" as is government control. If you remove government intereference on behalf of both buyers as well as sellers you don't have either problem. No more government handouts, no more subsidies, no more eminent domain. We would have a nationwide wireless infrastructure connecting everything by now if innovation were left to the free market.
It's incredible to listen to people who are supposed to be technologically savvy chastise corporations as evil. Since the inception of the free market and private shareholder enterprise we've gone from a species who could barely feed itself and sustain a population to one that can support 6+ billion people, put someone on the moon, and access any piece of information from anywhere in the world.
There's only a location lock-in because regulation makes the incumbent providers be able to exclude others. If they had to bear the real cost of the service by leasing easements and right-of-ways and if state and local governments never granted monopolies or colluded with incumbents to restrict competition we wouldn't be in the position wer're in now. So instead of make a bad problem worse with more regulation let's fix the original problem - competition.
If the ISP starts sending a content provider a bill, said provider will charge you to make up the revenue shortfall.
If the ISP bills you for usage because you are sucking down 1TB a month from nudieteenslikenerds.com what's the difference?
If you don't like what you're charged from an ISP or a content provider, don't pay it and go somehere else. Why don't you spend your lobbying efforts on the real problem - competition and deregulation. With enough ISPs a cable or telco won't have the power to dictate rates and policies and all the legislation in the world of "internet freedom" or "net neutrality" won't matter one bit. Better yet, start a WiMax or some other wireless internet service in your town and make them all look like fools for spending billions on fiber and copper.
The bottom line is let the market come up with the solution and not congress - they always fuck it up.
It's called price discrimination and it allows companies to sell products to those who will pay higher prices for higher prices. The principal keeps 80% of retail products companies in business. It's not predatory, it's not unethical, it's just economics. Keep in mind it happens both ways too - some customers are far less profitable than others at the same service and product level.
What is the corporate income tax level? What is the compliance overhead? What's the gasoline tax? What's the ad valorem tax on real and personal property? What is the luxury tax on personal property? What are the value-add taxes associated with raw and intermediate materials? What are the agricultural subsidies and taxes attached to food? What are the import and excise (yes, Canda can tax exports)?
Once you fill in those factors you will see the 60% number. You, the citizen consumer pay for all of that in the end.
And you're only proving my point when you say New Yorkers are taxed as badly as Canadians. That doesn't excuse the behavior, it only tells you socialism is contagious.
And the Canadian healthcare system is a joke: http://onthefencefilms.com/video/deadmeat/
Keep in mind the tradeoffs for what France, Japan, and Korea are doing. Their is little competition (sometimes none) in telecommunications service. The government taxes you, most times in excess of 60% of your income considering the overall tax burden in socialist democracies. The government takes that tax money and most of your service fees and gives them to that one incumbent provider.
The goverment subsidizes those services, which means even the people who don't want it have to pay for it. I'd rather pay $15 more for my cable modem and not have to pay $10 for yours. What those governments do is steal, from everyone to give a little back all in the name of a better society.
I think you're missing the point with the WiFi discussion. Municipal governments have the power to tax and set rates for SBC. Now they want to go in direct competition with SBC. Why is it that anyone who sees this as a conflict of interest is a greedy corporate swine. Governments have no business in the phone business, water business, or any business other than GOVERNMENT.
Be careful making overbroad statements like that. Using broad brushes sometimes paints the window shut. Here's what I mean:
Cookie cutter form letters never make it to your leglislator. These message are generally salient enough to garner some degree media coverage and constituency feelings can be gleaned for other sources much more accurately (and efficiently) than from counting letters for and against an issue.
The REAL way to influence legislators (and I will lose my job if anyone figures out who I am) is to call their district office(s) en masse. Staff is unable to do their real jobs in the district because they are answering phones. Contrary to popular belief, the legislators don't have tons of money to staff district offices and these people have more to do than you can imagine.
The second most effective method to garner attention to your cause is a thoughtful and *ORIGINAL* correspondence to the legislator. For the state reps I have worked for, usually 3 or 4 letters on the same topic from constituents will cause their staff to alert the legislator. After a half dozen *ORIGINAL* letters each providing detail how it will affect voters in their districts the legislator will direct staff to research a public position.
If you can't manage originality, a good way to spam your legislator is by COMPLIMENTING them for taking a favorable position on your issue (or one close to favorable at least) or ENCOURAGING them for not taking a poisition opposite yours. These people are so used to negative pressures from peers and latent voter groups (i.e. mobilization threats) they become numb to them. What gets a legislator's blood moving is stroking their ego and affirming their position on something - be it indifference or not.
Ok, any more lobbying advice and I'm going to have to start billing you. Good luck.
If you study the economic theory of intellectual property you'll find plenty of explanation for it. In order to encourage innovation you have to grant a(n at least temporary) monopoly upon the invention/work. Not doing so would remove economic incentive for it to be created. Information has unique properties of being non-rivalrous, difficult to exclude, and carries little to no transaction costs for its transfer. The only way to protect it as property is through the power of a civil government. This idea is not one the Libertarians came up with. The framers of (I suspect your) constitution granted the federal government explicit power to manage copyrights and patents. If you don't like the patent/copyright system as it stands; fine. If you don't like patents and copyrights at all you should take a moment to imagine what your society would be like without them.
Gasoline taxes are consumer taxes. Oil companies are awarded anti-dumping and reciprocal trade tariffs more than the steel and auto industry combined. There is plenty of protectionism in the oil industry.
Re:Governments can save us by BUTTING OUT.
on
The End of the Oil Age
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
Jerk. Stole my thunder! I know the Libertarian ideal is very unpopular just by reading this very thread. Is it that all of slashdot is crawling with people who think their government, their societies, owe them something? "keep driving my car until the government pays me to drive something else". Why is that even a viable option? Most people who pay 20K a year or more in taxes can't stand that viewpoint. And the ones that do are more interested in their social agenda than the welfare of their society. F Marx, F the EU, and F. Lee Bailey!
www.cei.org
www.ios.org
www.aynrand.org
www.cato.org
www.lp.org
That's plenty of reading if you're interested. Otherwise just close your eyes real tight!
Governments don't need to promote anything. The government never promoted steam engines. The government never gave subsidies and tax credits to people buying internal combustion. There weren't research grants given to Westinghouse to develop power reactors. When fossil fuels are no longer economically viable a competitive substitute will appear. If you have a political motive for generating the substitute fine by me, just make it cheaper than oil or have some other marginally beneficial attribute (i.e. not being from the middle east) and I'll buy it. Until then keep government out of my economy.
Here's news: All universities point left. As a social sciences student I am yet to attend a class on political thought that wasn't overwhelmingly slanted towards . I have even had conservative (read: Republican) teachers who have no choice but to teach the curriculums imposed by the powers that be. I'm certain this is even more apparent in private institutions as well as public ones in the northeast & California. Liberal arts educations are the core for a reason. They are contrary to traditional views and therefore encourage you to think! I am definitely capitalistic and conservative in my politics, but I am also grateful to have attended a University that exposed me, sometimes kicking and screaming, to liberal thought - now I can defend my âoeneoconâ bias with greater ability.
I wouldn't attend an online university if I wanted an education - but if all I wanted was a diploma; why not?
Slashdot Mirror
Budget cuts? You've gotta be kidding: http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/10facts/edlite-chart.html Per pupil spending has skyrocketed in the last 40 years.
Treasuries are guaranteed and bank accounts are not - unless you mean the FDIC insurance which taxpayers provide for anyway. So no, investors would rather buy government bonds than keep it in banks since risk is lower and return is (supposedly) higher. And foreign investment is still part of the economy - government borrowing will crowd out the private investment. I never claimed government spending was good or bad. I claimed it's inefficient and ineffective as economic stimulus.
Where are they going to get the money they are handing out in the first place:
A. people who have saved and can buy treasury instruments thus crowding out private investment.
B. taxes on the people who would invest in businesses that buy things and employ people
C. monetizing the cost and inflating prices across the board
D. All of the above
Really? How come only 18 percent of Japanese polled believe the 2 trillion yen plan by the Aso government will work? A full 71 percent don't think it will do anything to stimulate the economy. http://www.japaninc.com/jin495_economic_stimulus_package
Government spending does not stimulate the economy. It takes money FROM the economy and redistributes it to politically favored and connected groups. Bastiat recognized this 160 years ago. Keynesian economic stimulation has never worked before, during, or since Keynes lived. http://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basEss1.html
No, economic competition means it's a substitute good or service. XM and Sirius were created for this very purpose as was the ipod. Automakers compete directly with every public transport system in the world. Pro football competes with Desperate Housewives. The examples are endless.
So explain why the near government monopoly of primary and secondary education has driven the quality of those services to pitiful levels while the competitive higher education institutions in this country are the envy of the world. DC Schools spend $24,000/student/year for an education nowhere near what that of the local Catholic/charter/for-profit school delivers for a fraction of that cost. There are always winners and losers in markets - but it's irresponsible to respond in the manner you have. By claiming evidence and providing none you further irresponsible debate. And by the way, just because the taxpayers foot the bill, that doesn't make something "free".
Yes, while you made wild over-generalizations about what goes on in other countries, you still did not refute the fact corporate income tax policy has an effect on behavior.
If IBMs taxes go down they are able to invest more money and hire more people like you and me to work for them or to pay out as dividends to their shareholders (who will then reinvest them). If a government raises taxes rational actors will move their operations and investments elsewhere as long as the costs of doing so don't exceed the tax benefits. If IBMs taxes become so high that they leave your town/state/country it most certainly will affect you. You can lose your job, businesses and suppliers that benefit from the direct and ancilliary economic activity they provided will suffer, and ALL the tax money associated with all that activity will disappear! This is exactly why Estonia, Ireland, Switzerland, a few dozen other countries around the globe are booming locations of investment, jobs, and wealth creation. Their governments aren't penalizing positive returns on investment. The opposite is also true; jurisdictions with excessive corporate income taxes are seeing low or negative rates of foreign direct investment growth and theie statist governments liek those in Old Europe are screaming for "tax harmonization" to stop the flight of jobs, capital, and talent.
And it's factually inaccurate to say all taxes are created equal. Some have effects on investment (corporate income tax), others on consumption (sales, vat, sin taxes). Other taxes influence all sorts of behavior like tolls, carbon taxes, congestion taxes, etc. Eventually only individuals pay these taxes, but that's a truism with no value to your argument.
And you errantly lumped in health insurance as equivalence to income tax when it's the exact opposite. Employers in the U.S. deduct health insurance expenses from their income and don't pay taxes on that money at all making it part of your compensation. In fact it was specifically designed as a way to pay people more during the obscenely high tax rates in the post WWII era. It's nothing like the socialized medicine of some, but nowhere near "most", nations which actually impose a tax like we do for medicare. Corporations are made to serve the interests of those that own them just like you exist to serve your own interests, as different from mine as they may be.
A few places to start your education:
Intro to the Laffer Curve:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fIqyCpCPrvU
Global Tax Competition:http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8382
News from the Worldwide trend towards lower taxes:http://tax-news.com/
Of course workers pay the price, silly! The price customers pay is not influenced at all by what the workers are paid. They are two seperate demand curves and while they certainly reflective of one another they are not interchangeable. If the level of productivity with which I operate to meet market demand requires 100 workers I can hire them at the wage level I can afford to pay or not hire them and have unmet demand in the marketplace. In what we call the "long run", the price of the good or service will rise. More than likely what will happen is I will find ways to increase productivity with my fewer workers or a competitor has a comparative advantage (hint: maybe he operates in a jurisdiction with a lower tax rate) will enter the market to meet demand. There's nothing wrong with my math. If $1 is appropriated from my profits as income tax and in return I pay $1.01 less in salaries as a result of that tax burden, the effect is > 100% (101% in this example). The discussion was around corporate income tax, not gasoline taxes. The U.S. has the 2nd highest corporate tax rate in the OECD http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/1466.html. The US is fortunate to have a low tax rate on fuel, however I fail to see how that's justification for a confiscatorily (is that a word?) high corporate tax. Better luck on Tuesday!
McCain is so screwed. He took public funds earlier in his campaign when no one owuld give him any money. Now he's facing the spending limits associated with doing so. His own anti-first amendment legislation is biting him in the ass. Huckabee's campaign is running on vapors. Paul is the only Republican who seems to be able to consistently raise money on his own. Let's hope for that brokered convention!
Corporate income taxes are always paid for by the employees in the form of lower salaries and less employment. The overhead in compliance with tax laws actually makes the loss over 100%. The US already has one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world (~42% when averaging federal, state, and local taxes). Corporations exist to make money and if they can legally avoid taxes you should be grateful; they are able to employ workers and pay them more so you don't have to subsidize them with your tax dollars.
Free market types don't like government sanctioned monopolies or protected markets either. The entrenched special interests like the telcos and their rent-seeking are just as repulsive to us "free-market types" as is government control. If you remove government intereference on behalf of both buyers as well as sellers you don't have either problem. No more government handouts, no more subsidies, no more eminent domain. We would have a nationwide wireless infrastructure connecting everything by now if innovation were left to the free market.
It's incredible to listen to people who are supposed to be technologically savvy chastise corporations as evil. Since the inception of the free market and private shareholder enterprise we've gone from a species who could barely feed itself and sustain a population to one that can support 6+ billion people, put someone on the moon, and access any piece of information from anywhere in the world.
There's only a location lock-in because regulation makes the incumbent providers be able to exclude others. If they had to bear the real cost of the service by leasing easements and right-of-ways and if state and local governments never granted monopolies or colluded with incumbents to restrict competition we wouldn't be in the position wer're in now. So instead of make a bad problem worse with more regulation let's fix the original problem - competition.
If the ISP starts sending a content provider a bill, said provider will charge you to make up the revenue shortfall.
If the ISP bills you for usage because you are sucking down 1TB a month from nudieteenslikenerds.com what's the difference?
If you don't like what you're charged from an ISP or a content provider, don't pay it and go somehere else. Why don't you spend your lobbying efforts on the real problem - competition and deregulation. With enough ISPs a cable or telco won't have the power to dictate rates and policies and all the legislation in the world of "internet freedom" or "net neutrality" won't matter one bit. Better yet, start a WiMax or some other wireless internet service in your town and make them all look like fools for spending billions on fiber and copper.
The bottom line is let the market come up with the solution and not congress - they always fuck it up.
It's called price discrimination and it allows companies to sell products to those who will pay higher prices for higher prices. The principal keeps 80% of retail products companies in business. It's not predatory, it's not unethical, it's just economics. Keep in mind it happens both ways too - some customers are far less profitable than others at the same service and product level.
The wikipedia entry is a good primer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_discrimination
What is the corporate income tax level? What is the compliance overhead? What's the gasoline tax? What's the ad valorem tax on real and personal property? What is the luxury tax on personal property? What are the value-add taxes associated with raw and intermediate materials? What are the agricultural subsidies and taxes attached to food? What are the import and excise (yes, Canda can tax exports)? Once you fill in those factors you will see the 60% number. You, the citizen consumer pay for all of that in the end. And you're only proving my point when you say New Yorkers are taxed as badly as Canadians. That doesn't excuse the behavior, it only tells you socialism is contagious. And the Canadian healthcare system is a joke: http://onthefencefilms.com/video/deadmeat/
Keep in mind the tradeoffs for what France, Japan, and Korea are doing. Their is little competition (sometimes none) in telecommunications service. The government taxes you, most times in excess of 60% of your income considering the overall tax burden in socialist democracies. The government takes that tax money and most of your service fees and gives them to that one incumbent provider. The goverment subsidizes those services, which means even the people who don't want it have to pay for it. I'd rather pay $15 more for my cable modem and not have to pay $10 for yours. What those governments do is steal, from everyone to give a little back all in the name of a better society.
I think you're missing the point with the WiFi discussion. Municipal governments have the power to tax and set rates for SBC. Now they want to go in direct competition with SBC. Why is it that anyone who sees this as a conflict of interest is a greedy corporate swine. Governments have no business in the phone business, water business, or any business other than GOVERNMENT.
Be careful making overbroad statements like that. Using broad brushes sometimes paints the window shut. Here's what I mean:
Cookie cutter form letters never make it to your leglislator. These message are generally salient enough to garner some degree media coverage and constituency feelings can be gleaned for other sources much more accurately (and efficiently) than from counting letters for and against an issue.
The REAL way to influence legislators (and I will lose my job if anyone figures out who I am) is to call their district office(s) en masse. Staff is unable to do their real jobs in the district because they are answering phones. Contrary to popular belief, the legislators don't have tons of money to staff district offices and these people have more to do than you can imagine.
The second most effective method to garner attention to your cause is a thoughtful and *ORIGINAL* correspondence to the legislator. For the state reps I have worked for, usually 3 or 4 letters on the same topic from constituents will cause their staff to alert the legislator. After a half dozen *ORIGINAL* letters each providing detail how it will affect voters in their districts the legislator will direct staff to research a public position.
If you can't manage originality, a good way to spam your legislator is by COMPLIMENTING them for taking a favorable position on your issue (or one close to favorable at least) or ENCOURAGING them for not taking a poisition opposite yours. These people are so used to negative pressures from peers and latent voter groups (i.e. mobilization threats) they become numb to them. What gets a legislator's blood moving is stroking their ego and affirming their position on something - be it indifference or not.
Ok, any more lobbying advice and I'm going to have to start billing you. Good luck.
If you study the economic theory of intellectual property you'll find plenty of explanation for it. In order to encourage innovation you have to grant a(n at least temporary) monopoly upon the invention/work. Not doing so would remove economic incentive for it to be created. Information has unique properties of being non-rivalrous, difficult to exclude, and carries little to no transaction costs for its transfer. The only way to protect it as property is through the power of a civil government. This idea is not one the Libertarians came up with. The framers of (I suspect your) constitution granted the federal government explicit power to manage copyrights and patents. If you don't like the patent/copyright system as it stands; fine. If you don't like patents and copyrights at all you should take a moment to imagine what your society would be like without them.
Gasoline taxes are consumer taxes. Oil companies are awarded anti-dumping and reciprocal trade tariffs more than the steel and auto industry combined. There is plenty of protectionism in the oil industry.
Jerk. Stole my thunder! I know the Libertarian ideal is very unpopular just by reading this very thread. Is it that all of slashdot is crawling with people who think their government, their societies, owe them something? "keep driving my car until the government pays me to drive something else". Why is that even a viable option? Most people who pay 20K a year or more in taxes can't stand that viewpoint. And the ones that do are more interested in their social agenda than the welfare of their society. F Marx, F the EU, and F. Lee Bailey! www.cei.org www.ios.org www.aynrand.org www.cato.org www.lp.org That's plenty of reading if you're interested. Otherwise just close your eyes real tight!
Governments don't need to promote anything. The government never promoted steam engines. The government never gave subsidies and tax credits to people buying internal combustion. There weren't research grants given to Westinghouse to develop power reactors. When fossil fuels are no longer economically viable a competitive substitute will appear. If you have a political motive for generating the substitute fine by me, just make it cheaper than oil or have some other marginally beneficial attribute (i.e. not being from the middle east) and I'll buy it. Until then keep government out of my economy.
(1) WTF? (2) I'm sure I could dig up and read an 84 page FAQ somewhere and figure out why this article is red.
Here's news: All universities point left. As a social sciences student I am yet to attend a class on political thought that wasn't overwhelmingly slanted towards . I have even had conservative (read: Republican) teachers who have no choice but to teach the curriculums imposed by the powers that be. I'm certain this is even more apparent in private institutions as well as public ones in the northeast & California. Liberal arts educations are the core for a reason. They are contrary to traditional views and therefore encourage you to think! I am definitely capitalistic and conservative in my politics, but I am also grateful to have attended a University that exposed me, sometimes kicking and screaming, to liberal thought - now I can defend my âoeneoconâ bias with greater ability.
I wouldn't attend an online university if I wanted an education - but if all I wanted was a diploma; why not?
Just my $0.02