Then how about we get the government out of complicity in this consolidation of power in finances *FIRST*. Circle back and fix smaller issues later, if still needed. I would suggest no corporate financing of campaigns strongly.
Remove student loans. Fewer students going to college. Cut back/think creatively. If the above does not work, raise fees even more on the ones still attending. 10: Lose some of the border line ones, Raise fees again, br 10 ; note, fewer college educated people around. US culture does not celebrate much except wealth and power, less innovation, fewer jobs, cede "greatness".
In the same way that the demand for Rolls Royce cars is low, and the price is dropping on them.... Actually, wait. The price is pretty high on those, only the very wealthy can afford them. Maybe I better think about this.....
The skipper of the Shenandoah didn't want to fly his craft in the weather waaayyy back then. ( citation that there was some understanding of the issue even back then ) We have gotten a bit better at understanding the weather since then. I imagine we are probably a bit better positioned to build the craft to fair better than the Shenandoah.
You put high pressure water into the ground to break up the configuration of what is down there to make oil easier to get at, and you are going to tell me that there is 0 chance that that breakup of that underground configuration will not bring the water table into contact with that oil supply?
A; this reduces to saying "but the other is just as bad". Doesn't say anything was good. So, who cares, we need to look at ourselves. And there are many more than two choices out there.
B: the countries calling themselves communist have acted exactly as badly as you say. So, in terms of implementation, you are exactly right. I personally, look on it as that there are not and have not been any communist governments, they have all been killed stillborn in the "dictatorship of the 'proletariat'". Emphasis on the "dictatorship" part. And I dont think humans can reliably get to communism, they will all be coopted in that same phase.
"The fact of the matter is that in the UK at least, the top 10% of earners pay 50% of all income tax. The bottom 10% of earners pay 0.6% of all income tax"
You cant be serious. Not this one again.
The top 10% of earners, how much of the national income do they make? 10%? No, more? Much more? And the bottom 10%, how much of the national income do they make? 10%? No, less? Much less?
I'm not calling for income distribution to be equal, I understand fully that that would lead to a perverse incentive to be and act stupid. But using those cockeyed percentages to try to make a fairness point, I just have to wonder
And practically, say you had your way, and you took the operating costs of govt and divided by the population and required everyone to pay that. I cant help but think that you would have the wealthy paying 0.000000001 percent of their income, and the poor paying 1000000% of theirs. So, to match your "spends too much" criteria, govt would have to shrink to the point where the poor are not paying more than 100% of their income. And how much would that be? I hardly think it would be enough to run a small town, much less a country.
"So it is completely wrong to say that Capitalism has failed, and that these "usual suspects" of Trotskyists, anti-Americans and anti-Capitalists have a point"
Why the name calling? They have not stated, as a group that capitalism has failed, but that it has some issues. And it does, but can you look past and see them? And the "Trotskyists, anti-Americans and anti-Capitalist". Some may be, most aren't. And shouldn't it be about the message? So far, the message has been "there is bad stuff happening here, they mangled things for many so they could have a larger profit, accepted bail out money, paid huge bonuses, made large profits and are fiddling while America burns", in the main. Is that true or false. From where I sit it is "true". If you see it different, explain why. Dont just whine about "Trotskyists, anti-Americans and anti-Capitalists".
Yes, capitalism has gotten us where we are, but since the 70's, the productivity gains ( adjusted for inflation, of course ) have all gone to the top of the pyramid, leaving the rest stagnant. I don't think you can muster a real argument that the top of the pyramid is solely responsible for the productivity gains. So, why are we working harder? Greed is good, right? What is in it for the rest of the pyramid?
They had no other recourse? They *had* to? Doubt it.
"You dont seem to know the difference between the set of people that couldn't afford their loans and the set of people that later decided not to honor their loans."
Couldn't afford: There were some like that, sure. How did they get the loans? It wasn't all CRA. They were granted those loans by banks that knew the likelihood of that individual being able to afford that loan. And didn't care because they got theirs, and sold the servicing of the loan on down the line. Who knew more about what kinds of income were required? The banks. Who should have had a dispassionate ability to assess things? The banks. Who was hyped up by real estate people saying "get in before prices go to high up"?
The people buying should have made better, calmer, more rational choices, to be quite sure. The people on the selling side were far from innocent.
"Odd how we the people never accept any responsibility."
It absolutely is our responsibility, collectively.
"It's always those evil corporations somehow forcing us to vote for politicians."
I didn't say corporations were evil. Nor that they were using direct coercion to make us vote a particular way. Getting elected is all about being able to get money to run the campaign. Making sure all the right sound bites are out there. ( Which ties into the above, yes, we *should* ignore the sound bites and pay attention to policy, but voters run to what is simple. ) As long as the large amounts of money are coming from corporations, those corporations will expect that money to benefit them. Otherwise, why are they putting it out there? So, once the politician has had the use of the money to get elected, it will be hard for them to not vote in accord with the corporation's will.
Personally, I vote as you do, but what choices do I have in politicians? Usually it is one idiot democrat against a stupid republican, neither of whom represents "me", nor the electorate he / she / it supposedly represents.
Get the money out, limit the amounts and locations the contributions can come from, then politicians will have to align with their electorates to get elected, which is the main goal to begin with ( proper representation ).
I don't recall Proctor and Gamble paying me to vote any given way. Apparently they're running hypnotic ads which force people to vote for the candidate?
Since you can't blame the tragedy of the commons, we apparently blame the corporations. Makes sense...
Personally, I vote against a politician if I disagree with their policies - no matter how many TV commercials some corporation runs or pays for.
It doesnt, because it is really the issue of those with money using legislation to ensure their returns/profits/power that is the issue. The wealth disparity is symptom.
Remove all the ability to donate corporate money to election campaigns, and unlimited campaign contributions ( elected official buying ), and I expect you will see a difference.
Also, parents can care about their kids futures, but not know enough about how to make a difference, also, they can be in a position where they just dont have the time. My mom was in the later group, she was a single mom raising three kids having to work 2 ( sometimes 3 for a while ) jobs to keep a roof over our heads and food on the table.
His post stated 5%. Probably not "significant". Once you have adjusted for kids who didn't get the full 8000 ( not doing well enough to be in the top 5% each year ), and those who earned it but decided not to go, it will be less than 5%, or whatever percent is landed on.
Might what they charge go up? Not sure. Might, a bit. But not by the 8000 claimed. My take would be that the amounts charged would not go up, but that some poorer people would find they could afford a bit more higher education.
Slashdot Mirror
"Besides which there are still plenty of scholarship programs available."
If that is so, then *why* is anyone taking out a loan for school?
If those scholarships will get them into college, wont they distort the market in the same way, for the same reasons?
Then how about we get the government out of complicity in this consolidation of power in finances *FIRST*. Circle back and fix smaller issues later, if still needed.
I would suggest no corporate financing of campaigns strongly.
Remove student loans.
Fewer students going to college.
Cut back/think creatively.
If the above does not work, raise fees even more on the ones still attending.
10: Lose some of the border line ones,
Raise fees again,
br 10
; note, fewer college educated people around. US culture does not celebrate much except wealth and power, less innovation, fewer jobs, cede "greatness".
In the same way that the demand for Rolls Royce cars is low, and the price is dropping on them....
Actually, wait. The price is pretty high on those, only the very wealthy can afford them.
Maybe I better think about this.....
The skipper of the Shenandoah didn't want to fly his craft in the weather waaayyy back then.
( citation that there was some understanding of the issue even back then )
We have gotten a bit better at understanding the weather since then.
I imagine we are probably a bit better positioned to build the craft to fair better than the Shenandoah.
You put high pressure water into the ground to break up the configuration of what is down there to make oil easier to get at, and you are going to tell me that there is 0 chance that that breakup of that underground configuration will not bring the water table into contact with that oil supply?
I think you just made his point for him.
"Because to allow the large banks, etc to fail would do serious damage to whom?"
The banks? The people profiting enormously from them?
I suspect you land on "unions" because it fits your political worldview. Unions are not the only entities with pensions or other monies at risk.
A; this reduces to saying "but the other is just as bad". Doesn't say anything was good. So, who cares, we need to look at ourselves. And there are many more than two choices out there.
B: the countries calling themselves communist have acted exactly as badly as you say. So, in terms of implementation, you are exactly right.
I personally, look on it as that there are not and have not been any communist governments, they have all been killed stillborn in the "dictatorship of the 'proletariat'".
Emphasis on the "dictatorship" part. And I dont think humans can reliably get to communism, they will all be coopted in that same phase.
You *really* don't get it?
He ( and I ) get the concept of a percentage.
You are looking at percentage of taxation of all income without looking at the percentage earning of all income.
Do you really expect everyone to put the exact same amount in the basket regardless of what they earn?
"The fact of the matter is that in the UK at least, the top 10% of earners pay 50% of all income tax. The bottom 10% of earners pay 0.6% of all income tax"
You cant be serious. Not this one again.
The top 10% of earners, how much of the national income do they make? 10%? No, more? Much more?
And the bottom 10%, how much of the national income do they make? 10%? No, less? Much less?
I'm not calling for income distribution to be equal, I understand fully that that would lead to a perverse incentive to be and act stupid.
But using those cockeyed percentages to try to make a fairness point, I just have to wonder
And practically, say you had your way, and you took the operating costs of govt and divided by the population and required everyone to pay that.
I cant help but think that you would have the wealthy paying 0.000000001 percent of their income, and the poor paying 1000000% of theirs.
So, to match your "spends too much" criteria, govt would have to shrink to the point where the poor are not paying more than 100% of their income.
And how much would that be? I hardly think it would be enough to run a small town, much less a country.
"So it is completely wrong to say that Capitalism has failed, and that these "usual suspects" of Trotskyists, anti-Americans and anti-Capitalists have a point"
Why the name calling? They have not stated, as a group that capitalism has failed, but that it has some issues. And it does, but can you look past and see them?
And the "Trotskyists, anti-Americans and anti-Capitalist". Some may be, most aren't.
And shouldn't it be about the message? So far, the message has been "there is bad stuff happening here, they mangled things for many so they could have a larger profit, accepted bail out money, paid huge bonuses, made large profits and are fiddling while America burns", in the main.
Is that true or false. From where I sit it is "true". If you see it different, explain why. Dont just whine about "Trotskyists, anti-Americans and anti-Capitalists".
Yes, capitalism has gotten us where we are, but since the 70's, the productivity gains ( adjusted for inflation, of course ) have all gone to the top of the pyramid, leaving the rest stagnant. I don't think you can muster a real argument that the top of the pyramid is solely responsible for the productivity gains. So, why are we working harder? Greed is good, right? What is in it for the rest of the pyramid?
Think.
"How can you as a commercial operator expect to hold on to investors if your returns are way under that of Freddie and Fanny?"
Then you don't hold on to them. Nothing ( should ) guarantee a business a profit, or a field to work in.
"causing unnaturally risky lending practices"
They had no other recourse? They *had* to? Doubt it.
"You dont seem to know the difference between the set of people that couldn't afford their loans and the set of people that later decided not to honor their loans."
Couldn't afford: There were some like that, sure. How did they get the loans? It wasn't all CRA. They were granted those loans by banks that knew the likelihood of that individual being able to afford that loan. And didn't care because they got theirs, and sold the servicing of the loan on down the line.
Who knew more about what kinds of income were required? The banks.
Who should have had a dispassionate ability to assess things? The banks.
Who was hyped up by real estate people saying "get in before prices go to high up"?
The people buying should have made better, calmer, more rational choices, to be quite sure.
The people on the selling side were far from innocent.
Where in Canada? Or are you saying all of it?
I live in Poway, same basic area. I had not thought of that, but it makes perfect sense.
I was referring to the people out of work.
"Odd how we the people never accept any responsibility."
It absolutely is our responsibility, collectively.
"It's always those evil corporations somehow forcing us to vote for politicians."
I didn't say corporations were evil. Nor that they were using direct coercion to make us vote a particular way.
Getting elected is all about being able to get money to run the campaign. Making sure all the right sound bites are out there.
( Which ties into the above, yes, we *should* ignore the sound bites and pay attention to policy, but voters run to what is simple. )
As long as the large amounts of money are coming from corporations, those corporations will expect that money to benefit them.
Otherwise, why are they putting it out there?
So, once the politician has had the use of the money to get elected, it will be hard for them to not vote in accord with the corporation's will.
Personally, I vote as you do, but what choices do I have in politicians? Usually it is one idiot democrat against a stupid republican, neither of whom represents "me", nor the electorate he / she / it supposedly represents.
Get the money out, limit the amounts and locations the contributions can come from, then politicians will have to align with their electorates to get elected, which is the main goal to begin with ( proper representation ).
I don't recall Proctor and Gamble paying me to vote any given way. Apparently they're running hypnotic ads which force people to vote for the candidate?
Since you can't blame the tragedy of the commons, we apparently blame the corporations. Makes sense...
Personally, I vote against a politician if I disagree with their policies - no matter how many TV commercials some corporation runs or pays for.
"Years ago, people predicted the 3-hour workday from all the technology . Instead, a lucky few work full-time and the rest are unemployed"
It worked out... On average. The problem was expecting the top of the pyramid to make room for the bottom.
It doesnt, because it is really the issue of those with money using legislation to ensure their returns/profits/power that is the issue. The wealth disparity is symptom.
Remove all the ability to donate corporate money to election campaigns, and unlimited campaign contributions ( elected official buying ), and I expect you will see a difference.
I can conceive it.
Also, parents can care about their kids futures, but not know enough about how to make a difference, also, they can be in a position where they just dont have the time. My mom was in the later group, she was a single mom raising three kids having to work 2 ( sometimes 3 for a while ) jobs to keep a roof over our heads and food on the table.
"it gets you free breakfast during finals"
It is probably the ones who are not doing so well that need a free breakfast during finals. And at other times.
His post stated 5%. Probably not "significant". Once you have adjusted for kids who didn't get the full 8000 ( not doing well enough to be in the top 5% each year ), and those who earned it but decided not to go, it will be less than 5%, or whatever percent is landed on.
Might what they charge go up? Not sure. Might, a bit. But not by the 8000 claimed.
My take would be that the amounts charged would not go up, but that some poorer people would find they could afford a bit more higher education.
But this is not an increase in "student's ability to pay", but *some* student's ability to pay.
You should read kdemetter's post again.
"The beauty of mistakes is not only that we can learn from our own mistakes , but also from the mistakes of others."
He made a mistake, it was pointed out, he *learned* from it.