|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
 Posted: Tue Nov 06, 2007 9:58 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Leaving aside, for a moment, your fairly rude (and Loudly American-centric) insinuation that the rest of the world is apparently unfit to manage itself without the Americans at the helm, what about people who support Mitt or Rudy? Are people who think it is acceptable to torture fit to vote? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 06, 2007 10:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
I insinuate nothing. If you remove the United States from the United Nations, the United Nations will collapse. If you remove the World Bank, the IMF, and regional developmental banks like IADB from world economic affairs, then world economic affairs will experience much turbulence, to say the least. These are easily-predictable outcomes.
You have mischaracterized my position in the usual all-or-nothing dichotomies you people wield here. Also added meaningless qualifiers like "fairly rude." C'est la vie. Like Plig used to say: America sucks and if you say otherwise you are arrogant. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 06, 2007 10:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| thepeel wrote: |
| On the key issues of our day, he is bang on... |
As you probably already understand, Ron Paul would turn back the clock to pre-Great Society/pre-New Deal federal govt spending across the board. I am not certain that those here who support him grasp the significance of this. A slew of cabinet positions and agencies like EPA, FDA, G.I. Bill spending for veterans (which was always Keynesian-style spending in disguise of patriotism), SSA, Medicare/Medicaid...gone.
And you support this? |
Keynsianism has been completely refuted by modern economists. It is now only used by statists to justify interventionism and confuse the uneducated.
We need to eliminate all of the New Deal and subsequent Federal expansion. It will end in any case as the coming due date of the $60 trillion US federal deficit will ensure the collapse of most of the current federal entitlement system, and the US dollar. Hillary or Giuliani will only continue to expand that debt so that to ensure the collapse. The US comptrolller and nearly everyone in the financial world has recognized this.
Even Alan Greenspan has gone back to calling for the gold standard and has pointed out that the greatest period of sustained economic growth, expansion and prosperity, that we should look to as a model, was BEFORE the Income Tax and the Federal Reserve.
Maybe a Ron Paul / Alan Greenspan ticket would be just the thing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 06, 2007 10:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ROFL. And I am the right-winger on this board? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 06, 2007 3:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
but if it is what he really believes, I don't think it would be irrational for him to support Ron Paul.
|
On the one hand, On the Other Hand, I would agree with you. In most cases it is rational to support someone whose beliefs are parallel to your own; but on the other hand, On the Other Hand, what if the person who you follow is irrational? That to me seems to be the point.
Is it rational to support an irrational candidate? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 06, 2007 3:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thank you for that, Ya-ta Boy.
Those Americans who support Ron Paul come from the same gullible, easily-swayed, populist-vulnerable social stratum that elected Adolf Hitler -- and who currently support Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, to cite a more contemporary example.
Permit me another question, On the other hand: do you find it rational that university students and recent graduates -- most of whom could only finance their higher-education via low-interest, govt-sponsered, student-loans -- so fervently support a candidate who will not hesitate to ax such programs across the board once elected? Because to me that appears (a) hopelessly naive, (b) cynically hypocritical, or (c) clearly irrational. It can be nothing else. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 06, 2007 4:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| low-interest, govt-sponsered, student-loans -- |
Completely off-topic and out of the bounds, but...
...low-interest? The gov't has been selling lenders the ability to offer these rates at ~6% a year. If the gov't borrowed the money on its own (i.e. bonds), and lent it on its own, it could get a better rate! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 06, 2007 4:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| Gopher wrote: |
| low-interest, govt-sponsered, student-loans -- |
Completely off-topic and out of the bounds, but...
...low-interest? The gov't has been selling lenders the ability to offer these rates at ~6% a year. If the gov't borrowed the money on its own (i.e. bonds), and lent it on its own, it could get a better rate! |
conversely, if you get a non-stafford student-loan, you'll pay more than that 6.8% interest rate. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 06, 2007 5:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| ...low-interest? |
I am no expert on student loans. But I am fairly certain that if someone like Ron Paul abolished the program in one fell swoop and "liberated" the American people to seek private financing in order to go to private educational institutions (what other institutions would survive a Ron Paul presidency?), I do not think you would like the results, Kuros.
For one thing, low-interest or not, you cannot get the same deferments and forbearances from Bank of America et al. as you can from the fed govt. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 06, 2007 6:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| ...low-interest? |
I am no expert on student loans. But I am fairly certain that if someone like Ron Paul abolished the program in one fell swoop and "liberated" the American people to seek private financing in order to go to private educational institutions (what other institutions would survive a Ron Paul presidency?), I do not think you would like the results, Kuros.
For one thing, low-interest or not, you cannot get the same deferments and forbearances from Bank of America et al. as you can from the fed govt. |
I'm not a Ron Paul fan.
This year I have very little in student loans, but the next two I'll start to bank on them more heavily. I was just venting: the wallowing corruption and taint of the GOP leadership tarnished what could have been a competitive advantage for America in funding education at a low rate.
Ron Paul spells the doom of the Republican party. His candidacy and its popularity is a bellweather for Democratic dominance of all the government but the judiciary. I miss the mixed-party government that died in 2000. *sigh* |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 06, 2007 6:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| I miss the mixed-party government that died in 2000. *sigh* |
You and me both. Perhaps Hillary Clinton will bring it back to life. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 06, 2007 6:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
Thank you for that, Ya-ta Boy.
Those Americans who support Ron Paul come from the same gullible, easily-swayed, populist-vulnerable social stratum that elected Adolf Hitler -- and who currently support Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, to cite a more contemporary example.
Permit me another question, On the other hand: do you find it rational that university students and recent graduates -- most of whom could only finance their higher-education via low-interest, govt-sponsered, student-loans -- so fervently support a candidate who will not hesitate to ax such programs across the board once elected? Because to me that appears (a) hopelessly naive, (b) cynically hypocritical, or (c) clearly irrational. It can be nothing else. |
yep |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 06, 2007 7:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
Thank you for that, Ya-ta Boy.
Those Americans who support Ron Paul come from the same gullible, easily-swayed, populist-vulnerable social stratum that elected Adolf Hitler -- |
Got your panties in a bunch there G? A Hitler reference for a libertarian? Right.
Your country is torturing people. Are you proud of that? Does that at all inspire you? You, like oldmanyata, seem strangely obsessed with a man that simply has strong convictions and fully no chance of winning. And that is all you talk about. Meanwhile the republicans who have a serious chance of winning (Mitt and Rudy) are fully crazy. Rudy is a nut. Mitt is a religious nut. Both want war with Iran (a war, that I be so bold to predict, that you will lose) and neither seems particularly upset that the Land of the Free, Home of the Brave, the light on top of the hill, is torturing mother fuckers. And post after post about how crazy the Paulians are for wanting to roll back government. Look what government is doing. Why wouldn't we? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 06, 2007 7:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
I am no expert on student loans. But I am fairly certain that if someone like Ron Paul abolished the program in one fell swoop and "liberated" the American people to seek private financing in order to go to private educational institutions (what other institutions would survive a Ron Paul presidency?), I do not think you would like the results, Kuros.
|
I know you don't study economics Gopher, so I will forgive you for making such an elementary mistake.
Let me walk you through it.
Inflation happens when you increase the amount of a means of exchange chasing a commodity. That is, if you have 100$ and 100 apples in a closed economy you can reasonably expect the apples to cost about 1$ each (with some variation). If you then, in this closed economy, increase the amount of the means of exchange to 200$ and the amount of apples is kept at 100, then we can reasonably assume that the costs per apply with be in the neighborhood of 2$. Inflation!
How does this relate?
What large scale government loan programs do is increase the available amount of money that is reasonably accessible for students who wish to attend college. Schools know that there is more money out there for students to borrow, and that students do not understand personal finance and will max out their loans, and rationally raise their fees to ensure the local pubs don't get any more money than they ought to.
Government loans dramatically fuel tuition inflation.
Also, governments increase credit. Not only is there more money for student loans from the government, but with the massive increase in m2m3 there is just more money to lend out full stop. This also leads to rising prices in those commodities where people typically finance their purchases (see your local Southern California housing market for further evidence).
School is out. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pluto
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 06, 2007 8:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| thepeel wrote: |
| Gopher wrote: |
I am no expert on student loans. But I am fairly certain that if someone like Ron Paul abolished the program in one fell swoop and "liberated" the American people to seek private financing in order to go to private educational institutions (what other institutions would survive a Ron Paul presidency?), I do not think you would like the results, Kuros.
|
I know you don't study economics Gopher, so I will forgive you for making such an elementary mistake.
Let me walk you through it.
Inflation happens when you increase the amount of a means of exchange chasing a commodity. That is, if you have 100$ and 100 apples in a closed economy you can reasonably expect the apples to cost about 1$ each (with some variation). If you then, in this closed economy, increase the amount of the means of exchange to 200$ and the amount of apples is kept at 100, then we can reasonably assume that the costs per apply with be in the neighborhood of 2$. Inflation!
How does this relate?
What large scale government loan programs do is increase the available amount of money that is reasonably accessible for students who wish to attend college. Schools know that there is more money out there for students to borrow, and that students do not understand personal finance and will max out their loans, and rationally raise their fees to ensure the local pubs don't get any more money than they ought to.
Government loans dramatically fuel tuition inflation.
Also, governments increase credit. Not only is there more money for student loans from the government, but with the massive increase in m2m3 there is just more money to lend out full stop. This also leads to rising prices in those commodities where people typically finance their purchases (see your local Southern California housing market for further evidence).
School is out. |
In 1970 the cost of a University education w/ room and board was $2531.
By 2002 the cost, in nominal terms, was $18,273. In real terms, however, the cost of tuition was $3,917. The cost in real terms comes from the following indices: CPI'70 = 38.8 CPI'02=181 and of course CPI'83=100. Therefore the real increase was 55%.
What caused this increase is the question at hand. Thepeel makes the claim that the government flooded the market with money and college administrators saw all that money going to pubs and liquor stores instead of the college or university so tuition went up...
whatever 
It actually has more to do with supply/demand. Demand went up as did the needs of supplying those demands. In 1970, there were about 7.4 million undergraduates and by 2002 there were more than 13 million undergrads. Universities responded to much of that demand by improving facilities such as constructing more modern classrooms, laboratories, libraries and other facilities. Universities also hired more specialized professors and other personal who demanded more money. Thus there was a leftward shift in the supply.
It really had little to do with greedy administrators trying to prevent their students from enjoying their weekend benders
- ROFL  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
