How is that not related? There is an outcry of Obama's privacy being violated by rogue employees, but no outcry that the government orchestrated a privacy violation of an unknown number of American citizens who never elected to enter into public scrutiny? It is related because it's depressingly hypocritical.
> I'm talking both sides... *ANYBODY* making a career of politics is going > to lose touch with the people he is supposed to represent after a period > of time. By forcing them out after a set period of time, they might > actually try to get something *real* done instead of constantly trying to > stay in office.
In general I am on board with this suggestion. However, there are two issues. The good ones are SO RARE that if they do happen to get into office, I would like to keep them there. For example, Ron Paul has been in Congress since he was 5 years old, and whatever you think about him specifically, you have to admit he sticks to principles and brings a valuable diversity to the discourse. Same, for the most part, with Kucinich and a few others.
The other issue has to do with problems that have a broader horizon than 4-6 years. For example, in the short term, deficit spending and borrowing from other nations are not problems. A $x billion deficit is not going to bite a 4-6 year politician in the ass. The shorter the term, the less motivation a politician will have for attacking issues that have a longer-term payoff. However, this is a problem anyway... I just feel like it would get worse.
And, anyway, what good does it do to oust Face #19583 of the Republicrats just to replace her with Face #983025? I think there is a problem with diversity of discourse in general in our political system, and I'm not sure that term limits will get us anything but fresher idiots.
So, just so I get this right, the only regulation you believe is needed in a free market is anti-fraud and anti-monopoly regulations? In that case, I think we can rest in agreement.
Your first example is fraud protection an the government absolutely 100% has that responsibility. Even the most crazy free market proponent will agree with you there. I asked for an example of regulation that a "free market libertarian" would object to, but which is needed for a free market to function.
> In the US, schools are primarily funded by general taxation at the state and > local level. Parents who enroll their kids in private schools are not really > paying double tuition, since even childless people pay taxes.
I am also speaking from the perspective of the US. Yes, childless adults pay education taxes. But that does not mean that parents with children aren't paying double if they want to give their kids an actual education. They are.
You won't get an argument from me if you suggest that even the states cannot handle general public education.
An argument can be made that the repeal of Glass-Steagal made the effects of the crisis ripple further through the market, but it certainly did not cause the crisis itself.
It has nothing to do with a Democrat vs Republican thing. Both parties have been obsessed with encouraging home ownership for decades. "Encouraging home ownership" is a euphemism for intervening in the market such that people who would otherwise not purchase homes due to normal market forces end up purchasing homes. This has been done in a lot of ways, one of which certainly is the CRA. Others are: cutting interest rates below what the market would have it, allowing the interest on a first home purchase to be deducted from taxes, allowing penalty free withdrawals from tax sheltered accounts if used to purchase a home, etc. All of these things inflate the housing market beyond where it should be.
It was a fatal mistake for government to encourage home ownership. It's one of those things that plays well with voters who don't understand market economics.
Now, aside from that issue, there is the credit default swaps issue. This is a problem because the government intervenes all over the place in the financial markets, but this one area was not regulated like equivalent financial products with a different classification were regulated. The problem isn't really that credit default swaps need regulation. The problem is that everything else was regulated. Consider two identical products A and B. A is encumbered by government regulation. B is classified differently and is not regulated. The market for A will shrink to an unnaturally small size and the market for B will balloon to an unnaturally large size. This is exactly what happened with credit default swaps. Whether you think there needs to be more regulation of CDS or less regulation of everything else is really a matter of opinion, not fact.
> Markets can't be free without the proper regulation
I was going to respond to your comment, but I can't make any sense at all of this part of it. Maybe you should read up a little on what a free market is.
Um, no. Sorry. Please cite the deregulation you are talking about instead of blindly propagating unsubstantiated talking points of the Congresspeople responsible for this mess.
The numbers you are quoting are basically arbitrarily grouped. If you're trying to show which schools are the "worst" schools with these letters, it would make a lot more sense if you quoted % of student population who received letters. Of course larger schools will be sending out a larger number of letters.
Example, Marshall is listed as #25. It has 14,000 students and gave out 331 letters, or 2.36% of its student body. Ohio State is listed as #1. It has 60,347 students and gave out 1287 letters, or 2.13% of its student body.
I am really getting sick of people propagating the myth that Wall Street was deregulated. The US Government intervenes every single day in the financial markets. The Federal Reserve sets the cost of capital in a committed effort to manipulate the cost/benefit analysis of businesses deciding how and when to grow. The government has a very heavy hand on the financial markets, especially when it comes to encouraging individuals and companies to spend when they wouldn't otherwise spend, and yet when a bubble (which by definition is unnatural valuation) bursts and companies fail because they have inadequate savings (since they spent too much), no one asks whether the existing government regulation was to blame for any of it?
(Well, that is not entirely true. There are actually a few individuals in Congress who are asking these questions. But most of the public is not asking them, because they do not understand the market.)
> Few kids used to attend private schools, and if they did, they were probably > Catholic. Now, there's a whole system of high-end schools and activities for > rich kids.
That has a ton more to do with the federal government's failure of the public education system than it does rich parents. In fact, the household income threshold where people below that threshold would attend public schools is moving further further toward the lower-middle class. That suggests a strong shift in household spending priorities, which is partially due to education competition but even moreso due to the failure of the public school system. Many many families are paying double for education (taxation to fund public schools, tuition to pay the school they actually utilize and benefit from).
> There's heavy institutional support for getting into the right college. Fifty > years ago, there were SATs, but nobody took special SAT preparation courses. > This is reflected in the rising correlation between the parents income and > the child's income.
I think you are right, partially. But, again, I think you are missing the fact that current education does not properly prepare students for college, and therefore does not adequately prepare them for the SATs and ACTs. Both my sister and I did not bother with those courses, but we were fortunate enough to have a single parent raising two children who worked very, very hard to send us to schools that would actually prepare us for professional success.
I will say, though, that I must be lacking in the math department, because I have never been able to figure out how she was able to afford the private school tuition (although, I do know that our high school had funds available to subsidize the tuition of those with less income, and we did receive some of that subsidy -- further evidence that private schooling could actually work).
Ok, but did you see the Monty Python sketch where the elitist Brit trashes American cult humor in a way that smacks of "I knew the band before they made the big time and sold out"?
Sir, I humbly suggest that you must have been sleeping for the last 8 years. Didn't you know that the population size of this constituency is now zero? Personally I avoid charging that "honest law abiding citizenry" is an oxymoronic phrase, but others are not so generous.
I get your point, but I don't think it is really a question of efficiency. Am I going to make a discovery from something that requires a huge particle accelerator? Probably not. But when you have large facilities, they are constructed for a specific purpose. That's great and handles depth. But it also creates blindspots and groupthink and everything-is-a-nail syndrome.
True out of the box thinking comes when you're at home and tinkering MacGyver style. I am fearful at what we will miss now that we do not have the *breadth* of research going on in home labs.
Ok I asked them the question through that link. Not holding my breath, though.
I think you missed the point, though. How can you not have a "civil liberties" part of the website in today's environment? Not one mention of the Patriot Act that I could find. That was in his campaign speeches. What happened to it?
Slashdot Mirror
Dear sir, are you suggesting that similar content has been published on Slashdot on separate occasions?!
So do I need to call my lawyer every time myspace makes me change my password from "password1" to "password2"?
How is that not related? There is an outcry of Obama's privacy being violated by rogue employees, but no outcry that the government orchestrated a privacy violation of an unknown number of American citizens who never elected to enter into public scrutiny? It is related because it's depressingly hypocritical.
> I'm talking both sides... *ANYBODY* making a career of politics is going
> to lose touch with the people he is supposed to represent after a period
> of time. By forcing them out after a set period of time, they might
> actually try to get something *real* done instead of constantly trying to
> stay in office.
In general I am on board with this suggestion. However, there are two issues. The good ones are SO RARE that if they do happen to get into office, I would like to keep them there. For example, Ron Paul has been in Congress since he was 5 years old, and whatever you think about him specifically, you have to admit he sticks to principles and brings a valuable diversity to the discourse. Same, for the most part, with Kucinich and a few others.
The other issue has to do with problems that have a broader horizon than 4-6 years. For example, in the short term, deficit spending and borrowing from other nations are not problems. A $x billion deficit is not going to bite a 4-6 year politician in the ass. The shorter the term, the less motivation a politician will have for attacking issues that have a longer-term payoff. However, this is a problem anyway... I just feel like it would get worse.
And, anyway, what good does it do to oust Face #19583 of the Republicrats just to replace her with Face #983025? I think there is a problem with diversity of discourse in general in our political system, and I'm not sure that term limits will get us anything but fresher idiots.
More likely, imagine the guards bringing it in for the inmate.
So, just so I get this right, the only regulation you believe is needed in a free market is anti-fraud and anti-monopoly regulations? In that case, I think we can rest in agreement.
The purpose of my question was in the context of the implication that deregulation is at fault for this financial crisis. Does that help clarify?
Pissing off loyal Toyota customers is part of a coordinated international bail out plan for GM.
i dont really get it that you are trying to point out makes very simple sense to me not sure what your point is really sorry
Your first example is fraud protection an the government absolutely 100% has that responsibility. Even the most crazy free market proponent will agree with you there. I asked for an example of regulation that a "free market libertarian" would object to, but which is needed for a free market to function.
Care to give it another shot?
> In the US, schools are primarily funded by general taxation at the state and
> local level. Parents who enroll their kids in private schools are not really
> paying double tuition, since even childless people pay taxes.
I am also speaking from the perspective of the US. Yes, childless adults pay education taxes. But that does not mean that parents with children aren't paying double if they want to give their kids an actual education. They are.
You won't get an argument from me if you suggest that even the states cannot handle general public education.
An argument can be made that the repeal of Glass-Steagal made the effects of the crisis ripple further through the market, but it certainly did not cause the crisis itself.
Want to give it another shot?
It has nothing to do with a Democrat vs Republican thing. Both parties have been obsessed with encouraging home ownership for decades. "Encouraging home ownership" is a euphemism for intervening in the market such that people who would otherwise not purchase homes due to normal market forces end up purchasing homes. This has been done in a lot of ways, one of which certainly is the CRA. Others are: cutting interest rates below what the market would have it, allowing the interest on a first home purchase to be deducted from taxes, allowing penalty free withdrawals from tax sheltered accounts if used to purchase a home, etc. All of these things inflate the housing market beyond where it should be.
It was a fatal mistake for government to encourage home ownership. It's one of those things that plays well with voters who don't understand market economics.
Now, aside from that issue, there is the credit default swaps issue. This is a problem because the government intervenes all over the place in the financial markets, but this one area was not regulated like equivalent financial products with a different classification were regulated. The problem isn't really that credit default swaps need regulation. The problem is that everything else was regulated. Consider two identical products A and B. A is encumbered by government regulation. B is classified differently and is not regulated. The market for A will shrink to an unnaturally small size and the market for B will balloon to an unnaturally large size. This is exactly what happened with credit default swaps. Whether you think there needs to be more regulation of CDS or less regulation of everything else is really a matter of opinion, not fact.
> Markets can't be free without the proper regulation
I was going to respond to your comment, but I can't make any sense at all of this part of it. Maybe you should read up a little on what a free market is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market
Here, I'll even quote a bit of it since you probably won't bother clicking the link:
Got it???
Um, no. Sorry. Please cite the deregulation you are talking about instead of blindly propagating unsubstantiated talking points of the Congresspeople responsible for this mess.
The numbers you are quoting are basically arbitrarily grouped. If you're trying to show which schools are the "worst" schools with these letters, it would make a lot more sense if you quoted % of student population who received letters. Of course larger schools will be sending out a larger number of letters.
Example, Marshall is listed as #25. It has 14,000 students and gave out 331 letters, or 2.36% of its student body. Ohio State is listed as #1. It has 60,347 students and gave out 1287 letters, or 2.13% of its student body.
I am really getting sick of people propagating the myth that Wall Street was deregulated. The US Government intervenes every single day in the financial markets. The Federal Reserve sets the cost of capital in a committed effort to manipulate the cost/benefit analysis of businesses deciding how and when to grow. The government has a very heavy hand on the financial markets, especially when it comes to encouraging individuals and companies to spend when they wouldn't otherwise spend, and yet when a bubble (which by definition is unnatural valuation) bursts and companies fail because they have inadequate savings (since they spent too much), no one asks whether the existing government regulation was to blame for any of it?
(Well, that is not entirely true. There are actually a few individuals in Congress who are asking these questions. But most of the public is not asking them, because they do not understand the market.)
> Few kids used to attend private schools, and if they did, they were probably
> Catholic. Now, there's a whole system of high-end schools and activities for
> rich kids.
That has a ton more to do with the federal government's failure of the public education system than it does rich parents. In fact, the household income threshold where people below that threshold would attend public schools is moving further further toward the lower-middle class. That suggests a strong shift in household spending priorities, which is partially due to education competition but even moreso due to the failure of the public school system. Many many families are paying double for education (taxation to fund public schools, tuition to pay the school they actually utilize and benefit from).
> There's heavy institutional support for getting into the right college. Fifty
> years ago, there were SATs, but nobody took special SAT preparation courses.
> This is reflected in the rising correlation between the parents income and
> the child's income.
I think you are right, partially. But, again, I think you are missing the fact that current education does not properly prepare students for college, and therefore does not adequately prepare them for the SATs and ACTs. Both my sister and I did not bother with those courses, but we were fortunate enough to have a single parent raising two children who worked very, very hard to send us to schools that would actually prepare us for professional success.
I will say, though, that I must be lacking in the math department, because I have never been able to figure out how she was able to afford the private school tuition (although, I do know that our high school had funds available to subsidize the tuition of those with less income, and we did receive some of that subsidy -- further evidence that private schooling could actually work).
In the year 2000...
Ok, but did you see the Monty Python sketch where the elitist Brit trashes American cult humor in a way that smacks of "I knew the band before they made the big time and sold out"?
> the honest law abiding citizenry
Sir, I humbly suggest that you must have been sleeping for the last 8 years. Didn't you know that the population size of this constituency is now zero? Personally I avoid charging that "honest law abiding citizenry" is an oxymoronic phrase, but others are not so generous.
I get your point, but I don't think it is really a question of efficiency. Am I going to make a discovery from something that requires a huge particle accelerator? Probably not. But when you have large facilities, they are constructed for a specific purpose. That's great and handles depth. But it also creates blindspots and groupthink and everything-is-a-nail syndrome.
True out of the box thinking comes when you're at home and tinkering MacGyver style. I am fearful at what we will miss now that we do not have the *breadth* of research going on in home labs.
Thoughts?
Wow. A government regulation restricting freedom has negative economic consequences for society as a whole? Who would have thought.
> ... tallies...
>
> A Brit.
-1, Redundant!
Ok I asked them the question through that link. Not holding my breath, though.
I think you missed the point, though. How can you not have a "civil liberties" part of the website in today's environment? Not one mention of the Patriot Act that I could find. That was in his campaign speeches. What happened to it?