Occupy Wall Street

[tenthring]

Originally Posted by ubernerd

A movement finely focused on resisting Washington's corporatism and bailouts, however, could potentially be much stronger and wider, bringing together at least some of the anti-Obama Right, elements of the anti–Wall Street Left, and libertarians too. The conservatives would have to agree to leave their anti-immigrant and prowar signs at home, and the lefties would have to put aside their demands for national healthcare and prohibitions on gasoline.

Such a movement, involving the better people on both sides, could potentially make a difference, but it would require a far more cooperative spirit than we're likely to see any time soon. With progressives siding firmly with Obama as he demonizes the tea parties, and conservatives cheering the cops on as they beat the Wall Street occupiers into submission, it would seem that more than economic theory separates these disaffected groups of dissidents. Call it the culture war or partisanship, but whatever it is that divides Americans against one another — distracting them from the real problem in Washington, DC — is also no hero in this story.

Any movement should focus first on locking up the main culprits of the credit crisis. Its a cause that would have near universal support. Its goals are straightfoward and obtainable. Punishing the top XXX banksters would not be a sufficient measure to restore the republic, but its certainly a necessary precondition. Its hard to imagine a world in which effective bank regulation or bailout reversals can occur as long as the elites opposing it still have power. Nor do I think the countries psychy can heal while they are still free.

The mantra of such a movement should not be limited to such justice, but should make its first overiding goal and a precondition of negotiation with government authority. Until that precondition is met government does not have the legitamacy to address the people.

Such a goal also benefits from the fact that its straightfoward from a logistical sense. The crimes against these people are well documented. If we could have the Pecora hearings in the 1930s we can have similair hearings today.

[Harry]

Originally Posted by independent

I don't think the quote says that I'm wrong. I'm saying that much of the frustration in Cairo is due to economic problems. The protesters believed their government was creating those problems, or not doing enough to correct them. So they want to change the gov't. The Egyptian economy has gotten worse since Mubarak left (lots of tourists are staying away), and the people aren't seeing the economic progress they want. So they are back to protesting.

From the little I've read, they have a point in that the best jobs go to the politically connected class. But, probably the best gov't in Egypt couldn't raise the overall living standards a bunch.

It says "Protesters and political groups called for an end to emergency laws, amendments to the new elections law, a date for a presidential election and a clear timeline for drafting a new constitution." Nothing about economic troubles. They're tired of having friends and family disappear under Mubarak and are worried the military leaders will do the same. I'm sure there are economic problems too, but having constitutional rights seems to be the more pressing issue.

[tenthring]

Originally Posted by Harry

It says "Protesters and political groups called for an end to emergency laws, amendments to the new elections law, a date for a presidential election and a clear timeline for drafting a new constitution." Nothing about economic troubles. They're tired of having friends and family disappear under Mubarak and are worried the military leaders will do the same. I'm sure there are economic problems too, but having constitutional rights seems to be the more pressing issue.

If that's true why didn't they rebel during the last 40 years? Strangely enough rebellion started when the economic subsidies got cut back.

Also, why are people in China A-OK with their repressive totalitarian government? Seems GDP growth solves everything.

[The Obese Dog]

Originally Posted by ShebaPoe

What do you think that reason is?

Superficially, to help people to get "educated" but mostly to supply banks with gobs of debt that can't legally be defaulted on.

[Evol ded]

Originally Posted by ShebaPoe

I disagree.

If you take away the government guarantee on student loans, then the willingness of investors to lend would drop precipitously. This would cause student loan interest rates to rise, reducing the amount of money a student could borrow, and tuition costs would reflect this far lower supply of money.

It's really that simple.

In practice, lenders would want to see results. For example, you get accepted to Harvard, loan approved. You major in Math or engineering or a science at a decent or better school? Loan approved. Lenders would want to see report cards, just like bondholders want to see financial statements or mortgage lenders want to see pay stubs. On the other hand, humanities major? Good luck borrowing, friend.

Due to government intervention, the economics of student loans as currently constituted do not conform to marketplace behavior around lending. Government knows this. So they must have a reason for intervening so profoundly. What do you think that reason is?

well said. I'm glad to see your in agreement with me. I guess I should have put the market comment in red.

[Fish Actuary]

Originally Posted by 2pac Shakur

Banks are the problem.
Student loans are now an unlimited source of risk free loans to banks now that they are gummint backed. Now universities can charge as much as they want and all the art history students have $100k to pay for it. Banks get their money, university gets their money. All kids are convinced they HAVE to get a degree to be somebody. Why should universities cut tuition?

Parents don't play a role in this?

[Rickson]

Originally Posted by Fish Actuary

Parents don't play a role in this?

They do in a back handed way.

They are stoopidJSA(s) like their kids and think that the only thing to do is get that degree even if it means signing your life away.

Peoples is stoopid man...50 years of the best dumbing down eva!

[Fish Actuary]

Originally Posted by independent

I wasn't primarily referring to tuition. Most students/parents have enough information to figure out how much they are spending.

The missing information mostly refers to jobs. For this particular school, what percent of the grads with major X get jobs that require that degree? What is the wage distribution for those people? What percent get jobs that don't require the degree? What's their grade distribution? What percent are unemployed or back in school?

This is information that prospective students can't possibly get, but the colleges should be collecting. It allows students to compare majors and compare schools.

The difficulty with this information is that you're generally dependent on people self reporting. I'm not sure that the data is going to be particularly useful. Why are you asking about grade distribution? For grade inflation?

I'm pretty sure that general job information is available, you see it in the best careers articles and in the job growth articles in many magazines and from Federal forecasts. The problem is that parents and their kids spend more time looking for a school with a good "fit" than they seem to spend on figuring out what kind of a degree are you going for and why.

Originally Posted by independent

The second piece is graduation success for "people like me". Colleges should tell students that past entrants with HS grades, test scores, etc. "similar to yours" had academic success like: __% didn't finish freshman year, __% didn't finish sophomore, ...., __% graduated with GPA under 2.5, ....

More general information of this type is already reported, but most people don't read it.

Originally Posted by independent

If there is a correlation between graduating GPA and jobs, that should also be included.

On the tuition side, I think that schools that advertise "Don't worry about our huge tuition number, almost all students get financial aid" should provide real numbers right next to that claim. What's the average grant (not loan, not on campus jobs) aid per student? How does that vary by family finances?

Is this information useful? Wouldn't most students get a case specific offer from the university before they enter? I've only attended grad school in the U.S. and haven't dealt with the financial aid system here except to try and get them to fill out an occasional form for my Canada Student Loans.

Originally Posted by independent

[ I agree that some universities seem to be more about research than about teaching. For a student like you, that's probably a good thing. For most, it would be better to find schools where profs want to teach undergrads. I'd like to have the chance to go through university accounting records and see what the actual revenue/costs are from research activity. Are the state schools that get most of the research funds also getting smaller subsidies from the taxpayers (because research is a net positive)? ]

It's got some pluses and minuses. There are far more opportunities to get lab experience at a research university and find out if you want to go into science at a research university. In undergrad my best and worst profs were both heavily into research and cared far more about that than teaching. I think the bigger problem is the training of PhD students. I could get a faculty job for the start of the next semester and start teaching, but I, like most other PhDs, have never taken a class on teaching in my life. Apparently we're supposed to learn this skill through osmosis. NSF and a few other organizations are starting to develop some programs that are aimed at teaching post-docs how to teach and develop a class and use various classroom technologies, but it's still pretty spotty. Apparently many schools also have a bit of a mentorship program, but again, it's fairly spotty.

As far as state funding goes, I think the big research university gets more state revenue than the smaller universities because they have more state mandates applied to them (e.g. run the geological survey, support the state meteorologist, provide training in the obscure field, store the state library, carry all the obscure journals that might be needed at one school or another and supply articles from that journal to the smaller schools if they ever need it, etc.).

[Harry]

Originally Posted by Rickson

They do in a back handed way.

They are stoopidJSA(s) like their kids and think that the only thing to do is get that degree even if it means signing your life away.

Peoples is stoopid man...50 years of the best dumbing down eva!

Must be the flouride.

[sweetiepie]

Originally Posted by ubernerd

http://mises.org/daily/5746/Occupy-W...without-Heroes

This article cites the same stupid list. Someone should really take that down before a single anonymous moran ruins their whole movement.