Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

Occupy Wall Street


Recommended Posts

And how do you feel about the police infiltrator who hid behind his friends? About the cops ignoring his requests for police attention? If you read the description, he says he's not crying over the assault, as it caused no injury. Or was the only thing you got from the video was a guy crying about an assault? :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I absolutely agree that the wealthiest and most prosperous nation on earth, in the history of the earth, should subsidize higher education or provide it in full and free for those who want to make themselves and their country better. Education is the key to progress, innovation and prosperity for the individual and all nations.

It's an absolute shame and sham that the U.S. doesn't provide their kids with free education.....and instead spends their public's tax income to feed the war machine by the hundreds of billions.

It's pathetic for that interviewer to pick on some kid who hasn't even gone to college yet or is trying to afford it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see things a little differently. I bet you more than half of Americans want to go to school. Maybe 10 million people a year want to start university. At almost 100k per degree, this is potentially a trillion dollar annual drain. I like your point about military spending, but a trillion dollars is too much to bear for a big debtor like the US.

If the goal is to subsidize innovation and grow the economy, let's subsidize science, technology, or whatever else the economy requires. A blanket free ride for students will produce way too many sociologists and marine biologists. A blanket free ride will encourage a substantial amount of sub par high school students to stay in purgatory and delay becoming part of the economy. A greater percentage of current fence sitters are likely not to finish a degree. Should we subsidize half of a degree? I'm happy I got a degree and I'm proud and it helped signal to my employer that I am reasonably capable. But without a degree I could do 99% of my job just as well. I'm not going to b.s. myself into thinking that I'm significantly more productive because I spent 10% of my employable years being subsidized by every taxpayer in the country.

Most jobs are on-the-job skill specific and not significantly bolstered by post-secondary formal education. The jobs that are, absolutely, target some subsidies toward making people more skilled and productive. Most national economies are at a point where they have to decide priorities. Subsidizing scientists might be a priority- but subsidizing sociologists is not. I want to see marine biology funding going towards disadvantaged families. That would provide a better economic outcome in my opinion. Don't you agree we should consider the good that these dollars could do elsewhere before blindly throwing them at all worthy and all unworthy students?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You should be careful before betting on numbers and figures. Many of those people may want to just as easily go into Sciences, or trades, or technical institutes and colleges, or get business degrees to start a business, etc...

The money invested in education has been shown to be good for a nation's economy and for its individual citizens. I'm sure you'd agree with that.

It's not just the money they'd save from military expenditures but also from corporate tax subsidies which could be in the billions over all sectors. The biggest and most insane ones going to the energy sector that don't need the subsidies since they are the most profitable companies and industry in the history of the human species.

I'm not going to comment on your personal anecdotal history, education or current employment, because I don't know your personal circumstances or decisions you've made......but I'd bet that you wouldn't have the job you do without that degree....regardless of its value to the job description. It's up to you to find a job that maximizes what you learned, if your desire is to maximize it. But that's the problem, there are fewer and fewer jobs out there to do that, because fundng is being pulled, especially for Sociologists and Marine Biologists. It doesn't make their work any less significant to out species understanding of ourselves or our planet or make that understanding less important to many of us. However, the current economic model and prioroties of our head up our ass way of life, forces us to cut jobs in these areas first.

I'm not sure you're or i'm able to judge who is worthy or unworthy. However, if people choose not to finish their education, then wouldn't be subsidized. There's plenty of mechanisms that could be put into place to help avoid the system being taken advantaged of. I think there are plenty of bright people out there that can figure that out. I advocate for full subsidization, because the money is there, especially in the U.S. But even partial subsidization would be better than nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Partial subsidization, but targeted. The numbers game was just meant to put the cost of a comprehensive program in perspective. This would be a major cost. That's where I was going with that. Money invested in education has been shown to be money well spent mostly because it is spent on people who tend to have good grades, have been accepted under current standards and in most cases have incentive because at least some of the financial burden falls on their shoulders. Your advocacy for full subsidies will undoubtedly water down the positive effects and bring in fence sitters and people who aren't willing to invest in their own human capital. I agree that cutting energy and military expenses is a good idea. I just think that there are so many better spots to put the money. There will be some deserving people going to school because of your proposal. But there will be so much waste.

You are somewhat right on my circumstance. I may not have the job I do without my degree. but not because I am now more capable or productive, but because my degree showed HR that I have work ethic. Half the people doing my job have no degree. In effect, my degree took me out of the workforce for 4 years so that I could do a job as effectively as a person that has no degree. Was my education a good use of goverment resources or my economic capital? Not at all. The economy and government would have been better off if I never went to school. There are many who benefitted the economy because of their education, but many more who are doing something unrelated to their degree or something that they could have learned without 4 years of subsidized unemployment.

My best example is my industry, finance and banking. The most capable lower level managers around 30 years old have no degrees. Why? Because they have 4 extra years of on-the-job experience. They have specific skills related to the job at hand. Most educated people spend their 20s catching up. Maybe once we are all in our late 30s the education will even out the extra 4 years. Until then, the company sees their extra job tenure as more economically valuable.

The best person to judge whether they are economically better off with education is themselves. If they are willing to lay at least some of their own money on the line to prove this, that's a good sign they are serious. My argument isn't spending money on education vs not spending money on education. Mine is spending money on education vs something else useful you could do with that money. Targeted subsidies in industries we need, let's keep doing this. Subsidizing marine biologists when we are not spending money propping up these jobs is a bad policy. Your policy would be better (although I still wouldn't support it because people are starving and unable to afford cancer medication) if you advocated spending the money creating the jobs first. We already have a glut of people educated in this area to take the jobs on. We never needed to subsidize it either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is what the movement should be focusing on.....these conspiracies between Oil companies, Gov't and the lobbyists. It's makes me ****ing sick.

Oil Sands: U.K. 'Partner In Crime' With Canada On Oil Exports


OTTAWA - A British media report says the U.K. government has been giving secret support at the very highest levels to Ottawa's campaign against European penalties on its oilsands fuel, prompting environmentalists to call Britain Canada's "partner in crime."

The Guardian newspaper says energy giants Shell and BP, which both have major oilsands projects in Alberta, have been lobbying the government of Prime Minister David Cameron to back Canada's fight against the European proposal.

According to documents released under freedom of information laws, at least 15 high-level meetings and frequent communications have taken place since September between Ottawa and London.

The European proposal is to designate transport fuel from tar sands as resulting in 22 per cent more greenhouse gas emissions than that from conventional fuels, officially labelling Alberta's oilsands fuel as dirtier.

Ahead of the European vote to approve the fuel quality regulations on Friday, British Foreign Secretary William Hague offered support to the Harper government, sending an "immediate action" cable in September to the U.K. embassies in Canada asking "to communicate our position and seek Canadian views on what might be acceptable."

The Guardian says the U.K. and Canada's shared opposition to the European plan puts the U.K. in a minority among EU countries and will be deeply embarrassing as a new round of global negotiations on tackling climate change begins in Durban, South Africa on Monday.

The Guardian report is based on documents obtained by the Co-operative _ a U.K. mutual business group that targets tar sands as part of its climate change campaigning.

"It is very disappointing that the U.K. government is supporting Canada's efforts and we hope it has a rethink and puts tackling climate change ahead of Canada's trade interests when it comes to vote on the European commission's commonsense proposal," Colin Baines, toxic fuels campaign manager at the Co-operative told the Guardian.

Bill McKibben, a U.S. environmentalist who was arrested in August protesting against TransCanada's proposed Keystone XL pipeline, said the U.K. seems to have emerged as "Canada's partner in crime."

"This will be among the biggest single environmental decisions the Cameron government makes," he said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Create New...