Politics thread (USA Elections 2016) - Page 180

Oh yes we gave that great system here too Drone
It's truly fantastic
Right now as we speak my sister with a 1 year old is trying to find friends or family she can shift residence to so she can get the kid to a good primary school, a common practice here

And it's just like universal health care - they don't compete on salaries or funding, but on quality of management, service etc.
And there are large discrepancies between that because well, shitty people and badly run institutions keep their jobs for a long time

Parents go through great lengths to try to get their kids to a school with good reputation

On November 09 2019 11:25 LemOn[5thF] wrote: Oh yes we gave that great system here too Drone It's truly fantastic Right now as we speak my sister with a 1 year old is trying to find friends or family she can shift residence to so she can get the kid to a good primary school, a common practice here

I know of one woman who did not want her kid to go to one particular school. I worked briefly at that school and I can sorta understand her sentiment, but I also think it might have been a bit racist on her behalf. But for mostly everyone I know it's not an issue at all because they are happy with the school closest to where they currently live, because they're mostly all good.

There are richer and poorer areas of Norwegian cities, too. But I've worked at several schools in several of the poorer regions of Trondheim as well as a couple in the more affluent areas, and the quality of the teachers or of the school infrastructure isn't an issue. However, the more affluent ones will generally have a larger portion of the pupils coming from homes with more cultural capital which does to some degree transfer generationally. But the difference between say, teaching '7B' and '7A' in poor school X will often be bigger than the difference between teaching a random class in poor school X and teaching a random class in rich school X.

It has very little to do with wealth besides some bad neighbourhoods here
Simple thing is there are good people, good habits and cultures and there are incompetent people.

And when you get paid by pupil and there's not enough overlap of schools to drive some out of pupils and funding in larger cities at least
And you further put halt on competition by automatically assigning a zip code to a school. So the bad cultures remain bad, only slowly transformed by parent pressures

Schools with incompetent leadership and bad processes just keep doing their thing. That's why so many parents are willing to fake residence in some areas just to get kids to a school with good reputation

Same stuff happens to hospitals here
Healthcare is a right that you are obliged to pay towards
That means some doctors will just care more than others and the bad apples get weeded out much more slowly.
Luckily there are not area restrictions so some shitty doctors are going out of business at least .

See I believe in this system I believe in education and healthcare as a right.I myself have 2 degrees from Scottish institutions I got for free, and it's just a great feeling knowing if something happens the system will take care of you health wise.

(college is free here until age 26. And almost all private colleges are widely seen as jokes that are driven by profits not making people learn - so rich kids that fail a prestigious public school go there to buy their degrees).

But let's not pretend there are any black and white solutions to these issues - you try to fix a problem A by ding B and then you have to deal with C and D consequences, many of which you can't foresee when dealing with these complex issues

On November 09 2019 10:26 LemOn[5thF] wrote: Show nested quote + On November 09 2019 05:28 Baalim wrote:   On November 08 2019 19:46 NMcNasty wrote: I don't have a problem with your reasoning, and I think its a legit criticism of the bailouts (Sanders is heavily anti-bailout btw) I just don't see "an offer" as actually occurring. Its more of a case of degen shoving 27o simply because they're a degen. The consequences weren't really part of the thought process otherwise they wouldn't be making dumb moves in the first place. Sanders isn't anti-bailout, he is anti-bailing out banks, but he wans to bailouts students, which will do precisely the same things, give tax-payer money to the financial sector who lended all that money. The banks aren't degens, quite the opposite, they are huge nits who rarely make risky investments, they aren't going to lend money to people with awful credit rating for a house unless there is a moral hazard, they aren't going to lend money to teens wanting to study gender studies unless there is a moral hazard, (in the student loan case the specific laws that prevent defaulting and now the announcement of every democrat about bailing out students). you're talking out of your ass again Baal just use basic google for fucks's sake man https://datausa.io/profile/cip/050207/ I get your back and forths with Loco in abstract topics, but you keep making statements without just pulling data that you can get in a couple seconds...

I dont get it, what does that link refute?

On November 09 2019 07:07 Santafairy wrote: yang said you can just cancel student debt because the universities have been paid and tell lenders to go fuck themselves

Thats theft by the government no different than expropiation, the financial institutions would lose any trust in the government, loans become considerably riskier, interest rates skyrocket, tuition loans dissapear meaning less access to education for poor people incrementing income inequality in the future.

On November 10 2019 01:39 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On November 09 2019 10:26 LemOn[5thF] wrote:   On November 09 2019 05:28 Baalim wrote:   On November 08 2019 19:46 NMcNasty wrote: I don't have a problem with your reasoning, and I think its a legit criticism of the bailouts (Sanders is heavily anti-bailout btw) I just don't see "an offer" as actually occurring. Its more of a case of degen shoving 27o simply because they're a degen. The consequences weren't really part of the thought process otherwise they wouldn't be making dumb moves in the first place. Sanders isn't anti-bailout, he is anti-bailing out banks, but he wans to bailouts students, which will do precisely the same things, give tax-payer money to the financial sector who lended all that money. The banks aren't degens, quite the opposite, they are huge nits who rarely make risky investments, they aren't going to lend money to people with awful credit rating for a house unless there is a moral hazard, they aren't going to lend money to teens wanting to study gender studies unless there is a moral hazard, (in the student loan case the specific laws that prevent defaulting and now the announcement of every democrat about bailing out students). you're talking out of your ass again Baal just use basic google for fucks's sake man https://datausa.io/profile/cip/050207/ I get your back and forths with Loco in abstract topics, but you keep making statements without just pulling data that you can get in a couple seconds... I dont get it, what does that link refute?

cmon don't act stupid
you attacked gender studies
this is all banks look for - average salaries for graduates, % of employment not some abstract ideology.
Not sure what your degree you have but for employers usually it indicates you can complete something not necessarily direct work skills.They teach you those on the job besides medicine and some technical areas...
+ you have minors with that etc.
- the data supports that. That these degrees are a waste of time is a played out fallacy evidently

The data shows that gender studies students actually have above average salaries vs other graduates

Believe me banks are willing to go through great lengths to snatch up graduates + students
Because large % don't switch banks (my speculation, I'd be very surprised if you find data against this) as they build consumer habits and people stay with the same bank well into productive years.

That bullshit moral hazard is totally unfounded

On November 10 2019 02:34 LemOn[5thF] wrote: cmon don't act stupid you attacked gender studies this is all banks look for - average salaries for graduates, % of employment not some abstract ideology. Not sure what your degree you have but for employers usually it indicates you can complete something not necessarily direct work skills.They teach you those on the job besides medicine and some technical areas... + you have minors with that etc. - the data supports that. That these degrees are a waste of time is a played out fallacy evidently The data shows that gender studies students actually have above average salaries vs other graduates

First of all I used gender studies as a generalization of unprofitable loans, you aren't refuting my point just my "example" which isn't really refuting much.

Second the link you posted actually shows women's studies as one of the last profitable careers you can pursue, I couldn't find many worse paid ones besides other stereotypically bad paid careers lilke psychology or early childhood education.





That is how gender studies do against engineeering.

Naturally fixing the student loan regulation within its normal risks would stop subsidizing these mindless majors that only contribute to unemployed and people would be steered to careers that society actually needs.

On November 10 2019 02:37 LemOn[5thF] wrote: Believe me banks are willing to go through great lengths to snatch up graduates + students Because large % don't switch banks (my speculation, I'd be very surprised if you find data against this) as they build consumer habits and people stay with the same bank well into productive years. That bullshit moral hazard is totally unfounded

Every single democrat has vowed to bail out student loans, so you calculate the democrat chance to win then the odds of going through and there you derisked the loan X%.

This isn't even a debatable point, its a fact.

On more important news, Evo Morales the leftist dictator of Bolivia was forced to resign today when the army declared their support against him



One less leftist dictator in latinamerica!

Hopefully Venezuela will have the courage Bolivians did and finally kick Maduro out.

Baalim: The Big Brained Arbiter of what Society needs

countries don't need leaders who change the constitution to stay permanently in power, regardless of your political leanings, you dont need to be a big brained arbiter to know this, you just need a bit of common sense.

On November 10 2019 02:00 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On November 09 2019 07:07 Santafairy wrote: yang said you can just cancel student debt because the universities have been paid and tell lenders to go fuck themselves Thats theft by the government no different than expropiation, the financial institutions would lose any trust in the government, loans become considerably riskier, interest rates skyrocket, tuition loans dissapear meaning less access to education for poor people incrementing income inequality in the future.

is it theft when someone declares bankruptcy? why is forgiving gouged student debt profits when the schools have already been paid the principal, why is that specifically theft

I mean poor people have also scholarships based on need and stuff

But if nobody could afford the inflated price then schools would be forced to cut prices

On November 11 2019 01:00 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On November 10 2019 02:37 LemOn[5thF] wrote: Believe me banks are willing to go through great lengths to snatch up graduates + students Because large % don't switch banks (my speculation, I'd be very surprised if you find data against this) as they build consumer habits and people stay with the same bank well into productive years. That bullshit moral hazard is totally unfounded Every single democrat has vowed to bail out student loans, so you calculate the democrat chance to win then the odds of going through and there you derisked the loan X%. This isn't even a debatable point, its a fact.

you forgot to multiply by the other factor, the percent of time an elected politician actually does what they campaigned on, which is 0%, so there's nothing to fear

On November 11 2019 02:04 Baalim wrote: countries don't need leaders who change the constitution to stay permanently in power, regardless of your political leanings, you dont need to be a big brained arbiter to know this, you just need a bit of common sense.

if that was your point you wouldnt use words like leftist though

also the real dictators in South America is the army, they don't have to change the constitution to be in power or prolong their 'mandate'

On November 11 2019 05:01 Santafairy wrote: is it theft when someone declares bankruptcy? why is forgiving gouged student debt profits when the schools have already been paid the principal, why is that specifically theft I mean poor people have also scholarships based on need and stuff But if nobody could afford the inflated price then schools would be forced to cut prices

Its not theft since the rules of the loan were agreed by both parties, the possibility of declaring legal bankrupcy is taken into account in the loan.

The government stealing the money lent would shake the foundations of the economy, who on their right mind would lend money when the state is confiscating money, that is particularly devstating to the US since its the most debt-based keynesian economy in the entire world.

you forgot to multiply by the other factor, the percent of time an elected politician actually does what they campaigned on, which is 0%, so there's nothing to fear

using 0% in a poker forum mis a grave sin

On November 11 2019 09:22 Spitfiree wrote: if that was your point you wouldnt use words like leftist though also the real dictators in South America is the army, they don't have to change the constitution to be in power or prolong their 'mandate'

I used leftist because Evo is a leftist like virtually every other dictator in latinamerica.

The army? I don't know what you mean but you are probalby misinformed.

On November 11 2019 09:22 Spitfiree wrote: Show nested quote + On November 11 2019 02:04 Baalim wrote: countries don't need leaders who change the constitution to stay permanently in power, regardless of your political leanings, you dont need to be a big brained arbiter to know this, you just need a bit of common sense. if that was your point you wouldnt use words like leftist though also the real dictators in South America is the army, they don't have to change the constitution to be in power or prolong their 'mandate'

I think your refering to military junta. (military oligarchical dictatorship), your confusing 'army' with 'military', probably want to include those air force guys that chucked people out of helicopters for pinochet.

On November 11 2019 09:47 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On November 11 2019 05:01 Santafairy wrote: is it theft when someone declares bankruptcy? why is forgiving gouged student debt profits when the schools have already been paid the principal, why is that specifically theft I mean poor people have also scholarships based on need and stuff But if nobody could afford the inflated price then schools would be forced to cut prices Its not theft since the rules of the loan were agreed by both parties, the possibility of declaring legal bankrupcy is taken into account in the loan. The government stealing the money lent would shake the foundations of the economy, who on their right mind would lend money when the state is confiscating money, that is particularly devstating to the US since its the most debt-based keynesian economy in the entire world.   you forgot to multiply by the other factor, the percent of time an elected politician actually does what they campaigned on, which is 0%, so there's nothing to fear using 0% in a poker forum mis a grave sin

bankruptcy doesn't matter for student loans you can't escape

what do you mean stealing money? erasing a debt to someone which is essentially a predatory loaning cartel is stealing?

if you can set up a system that fucks people into getting $200k debt for something that has no price control on it (colleges have incentives to be more expensive because they get gov't assistance and can just set up a gravy train of hapless idiots getting into debt) that they can't escape from. why can't you also decide to change the system and fuck the lenders instead?