'Europe is poor so should live within its means'

Page 2 of 2Prev 1 2

- sgath92 said...
- User
- 10 Feb 2012, 21:18
Issendorf said:
But, you don't really offer any solutions to the problem.

Sorry, I thought it was obvious. What I propose is that we ditch fair trade. It screws everyone involved; the 3rd world's natural resources are pillaged without really benefiting them, and the 1st world's labor is forced to compete head to head against communist prison labor in China. Nobody wins [well, except the multinationals and their execs].

That's not a magic cure all, but it'll help put things back on the right direction.

We also need to stop our schooling system from telling students that "if you want to be successful, you have to go to college." Compulsory secondary education is a major problem with our economy, and a major reason why Spain is in as much trouble as they're in. We're graduating students in degrees that don't have jobs, because we've told them that "if you don't want to flip burgers you need to go to college." But then they've gone to college, and produced too many people with 2 & 4-year degrees; so they end up flipping burgers anyway while weighed down with massive student loans. You can be successful without college. Do you know how much plumbers make? Electricians? We're operating our schools under false premises and our students are paying for it.

We need to get our public schools back on track by switching back to focusing on skill sets rather than standardized test scores. It doesn't matter what someone can memorize, if they don't have basic critical thinking skills.

Beyond that, we need to reform the way student debt is handled in the US so that it is at least possible in more situations for people to declare bankruptcy. Our current system is setup to hold student loan debtors to a standard higher than any other kind of debt scenario. Which besides being unfair, hurts the economy by ruining the financial standing of our young professionals; delaying their homeownership, marriages, families, etc. In other words; its stalling out the specific stuff necessary for our economy to thrive.

We could end corporate personhood, to help cut down on the corruption that has put us in this direction. We could end nonprofit status for political groups [since they're not real charities!]. We could put in place term limits. We could force congress to to use medicare for their medical benefits, and social security for their salaries. We could adjust the capital gains so that the rich pay the same amount in taxes as the people who work for aliving. I'm not even suggesting we tax them higher, though I wouldn't be opposed to it; I am just asking for a fairer tax code where people who make their money off of investments pay the same percentage in tax every year as the people who make their money through a middle class salary. We should delete the AMT since congress has been unwilling in thirty years to adjust it to reflect inflation.

There is so, so much we could do that isn't even being given serious consideration!

[quote][b][user]sgath92[/user][/b] said: [quote][b][user]Issendorf[/user][/b] said: But, you don't really offer any solutions to the problem. [/quote] Sorry, I thought it was obvious. What I propose is that we ditch fair trade. It screws everyone involved; the 3rd world's natural resources are pillaged without really benefiting them, and the 1st world's labor is forced to compete head to head against communist prison labor in China. Nobody wins [well, except the multinationals and their execs]. That's not a magic cure all, but it'll help put things back on the right direction. We also need to stop our schooling system from telling students that "if you want to be successful, you have to go to college." Compulsory secondary education is a major problem with our economy, and a major reason why Spain is in as much trouble as they're in. We're graduating students in degrees that don't have jobs, because we've told them that "if you don't want to flip burgers you need to go to college." But then they've gone to college, and produced too many people with 2 & 4-year degrees; so they end up flipping burgers anyway while weighed down with massive student loans. You can be successful without college. Do you know how much plumbers make? Electricians? We're operating our schools under false premises and our students are paying for it. We need to get our public schools back on track by switching back to focusing on skill sets rather than standardized test scores. It doesn't matter what someone can memorize, if they don't have basic critical thinking skills. Beyond that, we need to reform the way student debt is handled in the US so that it is at least possible in more situations for people to declare bankruptcy. Our current system is setup to hold student loan debtors to a standard higher than any other kind of debt scenario. Which besides being unfair, hurts the economy by ruining the financial standing of our young professionals; delaying their homeownership, marriages, families, etc. In other words; its stalling out the specific stuff necessary for our economy to thrive. We could end corporate personhood, to help cut down on the corruption that has put us in this direction. We could end nonprofit status for political groups [since they're not real charities!]. We could put in place term limits. We could force congress to to use medicare for their medical benefits, and social security for their salaries. We could adjust the capital gains so that the rich pay the same amount in taxes as the people who work for aliving. I'm not even suggesting we tax them higher, though I wouldn't be opposed to it; I am just asking for a fairer tax code where people who make their money off of investments pay the same percentage in tax every year as the people who make their money through a middle class salary. We should delete the AMT since congress has been unwilling in thirty years to adjust it to reflect inflation. There is so, so much we could do that isn't even being given serious consideration![/quote]

Permalink Quote
- Issendorf said...
- User
- 10 Feb 2012, 22:05
I agree with you to an extent on the college front. The data is pretty undeniable that the more schooling you receive, the more money you make (whether the increase in salary is worth the increase in college bills is a different matter). What we need to tell high school students isn't "you have to go to college or you'll flip burgers" but rather "if you go to school, graduate with an english degree, art history degree, etc., then you will have massive debt from student loans and will probably wind up flipping burgers.

[quote][b][user]Issendorf[/user][/b] said: I agree with you to an extent on the college front. The data is pretty undeniable that the more schooling you receive, the more money you make (whether the increase in salary is worth the increase in college bills is a different matter). What we need to tell high school students isn't "you have to go to college or you'll flip burgers" but rather "if you go to school, graduate with an english degree, art history degree, etc., then you will have massive debt from student loans and will probably wind up flipping burgers.[/quote]

Permalink Quote
- sgath92 said...
- User
- 10 Feb 2012, 22:16
The benefit from schooling gets diluted the more people get the same degree.

That's why so many jobs that only really need employees with a high school education now require you to have a college degree. It isn't that the job has gotten harder; its that so many people are getting high school diplomas that they can get away for asking for something higher than that. Now to have the same benefit that a high school diploma gave your parents, you need to get a 4-year degree. It isn't that high school graduates make less than college graduates so much as; high school graduates have been pushed into being the equivalent of thirty years ago's high school drop outs. To get the benefit that a 4-year would have given you 30 years ago, you need a masters or higher.

There is no legitimate reason for hotel front desk workers to have college degrees in hospitality. Yet now we have secondary schools that exist solely for people who work in that field.

In Spain the government encourages people to go to college with loans, grants, subsidies etc. We do it too but not like they do it. They operate under the theory that everyone must go to college. The problem is that they have so many graduates that their resumes are completely worthless unless they leave their country. Everyone has a 4-year degree, so if you finish college and go get a job [any kind of a job] the response to your education is basically "So what!? Everyone that has applied here has gone to college." And you end up with 20-somethings with degrees who are living at their parents house because even the service industry is too flooded with their peers to offer them jobs. Having people with BA/BS's waiting tables, because that's the best they can get with that amount of schooling; is a huge waste of finite resources.

Compulsory education has forced the market to create employers who no longer care what skills potential employees have. It no longer matters. What matters is whether you've gone through the formality of enough schooling & have the degrees to show for it. Doesn't matter if you're more capable & knowledgeable than your would-be S.O. If you don't have enough diplomas you're seen as inadaquite. This is supply & demand in action.

The cruel reality of the market is that not everyone can be at the top. You cannot end poverty through more schooling. If the working poor's children finish high school, they'll need to finish a 2 or 4 year college degree to be competitive. If they do that, they'll need to finish a masters. If they do that, they'll need a phd. If they do that, they're going to need multiple specializations. There is always going to a be a pecking order based on credentials, and trying to get around that by overloading the market with people with a certain bare-minimum of schooling can't fix it.

[quote][b][user]sgath92[/user][/b] said: The benefit from schooling gets diluted the more people get the same degree. That's why so many jobs that only really need employees with a high school education now require you to have a college degree. It isn't that the job has gotten harder; its that so many people are getting high school diplomas that they can get away for asking for something higher than that. Now to have the same benefit that a high school diploma gave your parents, you need to get a 4-year degree. It isn't that high school graduates make less than college graduates so much as; high school graduates have been pushed into being the equivalent of thirty years ago's high school drop outs. To get the benefit that a 4-year would have given you 30 years ago, you need a masters or higher. There is no legitimate reason for hotel front desk workers to have [b]college[/b] degrees in hospitality. Yet now we have secondary schools that exist solely for people who work in that field. In Spain the government encourages people to go to college with loans, grants, subsidies etc. We do it too but not like they do it. They operate under the theory that [u]everyone[/u] must go to college. The problem is that they have so many graduates that their resumes are completely worthless unless they leave their country. Everyone has a 4-year degree, so if you finish college and go get a job [any kind of a job] the response to your education is basically "So what!? Everyone that has applied here has gone to college." And you end up with 20-somethings with degrees who are living at their parents house because even the service industry is too flooded with their peers to offer them jobs. Having people with BA/BS's waiting tables, because that's the best they can get with that amount of schooling; is a huge waste of finite resources. Compulsory education has forced the market to create employers who no longer care what skills potential employees have. It no longer matters. What matters is whether you've gone through the formality of enough schooling & have the degrees to show for it. Doesn't matter if you're more capable & knowledgeable than your would-be S.O. If you don't have enough diplomas you're seen as inadaquite. This is supply & demand in action. The cruel reality of the market is that not everyone can be at the top. You cannot end poverty through more schooling. If the working poor's children finish high school, they'll need to finish a 2 or 4 year college degree to be competitive. If they do that, they'll need to finish a masters. If they do that, they'll need a phd. If they do [i]that[/i], they're going to need multiple specializations. There is always going to a be a pecking order based on credentials, and trying to get around that by overloading the market with people with a certain bare-minimum of schooling can't fix it.[/quote]

Permalink Quote
- yellowcarpet said...
- User
- 10 Feb 2012, 23:48
Even though I generally speaking agree with your posts there is one thing I would argue with.
sgath92 said:
Sorry, I thought it was obvious. What I propose is that we ditch fair trade. It screws everyone involved; the 3rd world's natural resources are pillaged without really benefiting them, and the 1st world's labor is forced to compete head to head against communist prison labor in China. Nobody wins [well, except the multinationals and their execs].

If China had not opened there market to Western companies, China would still be impoverished backwater that it was 30 years ago. Opening up its markets lifted more people out of poverty than anything else in probably the history of mankind. The workers may had to endure shit conditions, but it has enabled many to actually provide a better future for its next generation.

[quote][b][user]yellowcarpet[/user][/b] said: Even though I generally speaking agree with your posts there is one thing I would argue with. [quote][b][user]sgath92[/user][/b] said: Sorry, I thought it was obvious. What I propose is that we ditch fair trade. It screws everyone involved; the 3rd world's natural resources are pillaged without really benefiting them, and the 1st world's labor is forced to compete head to head against communist prison labor in China. Nobody wins [well, except the multinationals and their execs]. [/quote] If China had not opened there market to Western companies, China would still be impoverished backwater that it was 30 years ago. Opening up its markets lifted more people out of poverty than anything else in probably the history of mankind. The workers may had to endure shit conditions, but it has enabled many to actually provide a better future for its next generation. [/quote]

Permalink Quote
- sgath92 said...
- User
- 11 Feb 2012, 00:12
The big unknown factor with how all this will help or hurt the Chinese people is their government. If we ignore the way their environment is being destroyed by globalization and simply discard that as an unavoidable evil to industrialization: there are still a few things that can make things bad for their people in the not so distant future.

Capitalism has undoubtedly wet their appetite for our way of life. With the USSR this helped their system of government implode, but with China there is a chance that this would result in major internal conflict considering their existing ethnic unrest, and other social problems. It has also made China into a huge consumer of fossil fuels, and has them going to every oil producing country the US alienates [i.e. Canada, Iran, etc] to fulfill their demand for it.

This by itself is no big deal. Except, the Chinese as early as six years ago were internally creating military contingency plans for what to do if this oil supply were ever disrupted because of American foreign policy. They are anticipating one day needing to go head to head against the United States to protect their oil supply, and show no signs of caring what that will mean for their people. In fact there is a document that has been talked about in academia relating to this that originates in the Chinese military entitled the Malaccan Dilemma where the Chinese military policymakers were talking about the amount of their people they would have to throw away if our military ever used a single carrier group to disrupt that choke-point in Chinese oil import infrastructure. The jest of it is: as long as they could take out that first responding carrier, they don't care how many casualties on their part would be required nor the amount of civies that would be annihilated in the resulting airstrikes against their homeland.

One of their emerging oil partners is Iran, who will get the bomb unless someone intervenes. If Iran were to get the bomb and nuke Israel, the United States would have to come to our ally's aid [the least reason for which being the fact that we created this Iran mess by the Iraqi War]. Yet since this would seriously get in the way of Chinese oil imports, it would unavoidably trigger China to respond against the US with military force; in other words WW3.

In the Cold War the Soviets had no goal more prioritized than keeping the Chinese from getting the bomb. Do you know why this was? Because Mao, the crazy lunatic he was; believed that if the China could cause the nuclear apocalypse he believed that the Chinese survivors would be able to rise from the ashes and take over the entire planet [why you'd want it after that IDK]. This scared the Ruskies beyond all belief, but unfortunately this fear did not extend to President Clinton when he helped the Chinese get the bomb.

[quote][b][user]sgath92[/user][/b] said: The big unknown factor with how all this will help or hurt the Chinese people is their government. If we ignore the way their environment is being destroyed by globalization and simply discard that as an unavoidable evil to industrialization: there are still a few things that can make things bad for their people in the not so distant future. Capitalism has undoubtedly wet their appetite for our way of life. With the USSR this helped their system of government implode, but with China there is a chance that this would result in major internal conflict considering their existing ethnic unrest, and other social problems. It has also made China into a huge consumer of fossil fuels, and has them going to every oil producing country the US alienates [i.e. Canada, Iran, etc] to fulfill their demand for it. This by itself is no big deal. Except, the Chinese as early as six years ago were internally creating military contingency plans for what to do if this oil supply were ever disrupted because of American foreign policy. They are anticipating one day needing to go head to head against the United States to protect their oil supply, and show no signs of caring what that will mean for their people. In fact there is a document that has been talked about in academia relating to this that originates in the Chinese military entitled the Malaccan Dilemma where the Chinese military policymakers were talking about the amount of their people they would have to throw away if our military ever used a single carrier group to disrupt that choke-point in Chinese oil import infrastructure. The jest of it is: as long as they could take out that first responding carrier, they don't care how many casualties on their part would be required nor the amount of civies that would be annihilated in the resulting airstrikes against their homeland. One of their emerging oil partners is Iran, who [u]will[/u] get the bomb unless someone intervenes. If Iran were to get the bomb and nuke Israel, the United States would have to come to our ally's aid [the least reason for which being the fact that we created this Iran mess by the Iraqi War]. Yet since this would seriously get in the way of Chinese oil imports, it would unavoidably trigger China to respond against the US with military force; in other words WW3. In the Cold War the Soviets had no goal more prioritized than keeping the Chinese from getting the bomb. Do you know why this was? Because Mao, the crazy lunatic he was; believed that if the China could cause the nuclear apocalypse he believed that the Chinese survivors would be able to rise from the ashes and take over the entire planet [why you'd want it after that IDK]. This scared the Ruskies beyond all belief, but unfortunately this fear did not extend to President Clinton when he helped the Chinese get the bomb.[/quote]

Permalink Quote
- Issendorf said...
- User
- 11 Feb 2012, 00:14
sgath92 said:

There is no legitimate reason for hotel front desk workers to have college degrees in hospitality. Yet now we have secondary schools that exist solely for people who work in that field.

I disagree with you on this point. I personally work at the front desk of a hotel to help finance my schooling. While yes, to work the reservation aspect doesn't really take all that much skill, there are aspects of the hotel industry where a degree in hospitality is rather important, such as planning/running a banquet staff, running the front-end of the hotel (the stuff behind the scenes that a regular guest will never see), working on innovations to increase occupancy rates, etc.

My brother graduated with a degree in hospitality. It allowed him, pretty much instantly, to go from an overly qualified line cook to become someone who could manage a night shift. Granted, he began to hate it and now does sales for my family's small business, but the degree in hospitality opened up many more career opportunities that he would not have had access to without a degree.

You argue that you don't need a college degree to be able to do those skills. You are probably right, but it's a moot point. Employers won't look at you if you don't, making the college degree that much more important.

[quote][b][user]Issendorf[/user][/b] said: [quote][b][user]sgath92[/user][/b] said: There is no legitimate reason for hotel front desk workers to have [b]college[/b] degrees in hospitality. Yet now we have secondary schools that exist solely for people who work in that field. [/quote] I disagree with you on this point. I personally work at the front desk of a hotel to help finance my schooling. While yes, to work the reservation aspect doesn't really take all that much skill, there are aspects of the hotel industry where a degree in hospitality is rather important, such as planning/running a banquet staff, running the front-end of the hotel (the stuff behind the scenes that a regular guest will never see), working on innovations to increase occupancy rates, etc. My brother graduated with a degree in hospitality. It allowed him, pretty much instantly, to go from an overly qualified line cook to become someone who could manage a night shift. Granted, he began to hate it and now does sales for my family's small business, but the degree in hospitality opened up many more career opportunities that he would not have had access to without a degree. You argue that you don't need a college degree to be able to do those skills. You are probably right, but it's a moot point. Employers won't look at you if you don't, making the college degree that much more important.[/quote]

Permalink Quote
- sgath92 said...
- User
- 11 Feb 2012, 00:18
Issendorf said:
You argue that you don't need a college degree to be able to do those skills. You are probably right, but it's a moot point. Employers won't look at you if you don't, making the college degree that much more important.

That, is my point illustrated.

[quote][b][user]sgath92[/user][/b] said: [quote][b][user]Issendorf[/user][/b] said: You argue that you don't need a college degree to be able to do those skills. You are probably right, but it's a moot point. [b] Employers won't look at you if you don't,[/b] making the college degree that much more important.[/quote] That, is my point illustrated.[/quote]

Permalink Quote
- yellowcarpet said...
- User
- 11 Feb 2012, 00:56
sgath92 said:
Capitalism has undoubtedly wet their appetite for our way of life. With the USSR this helped their system of government implode, but with China there is a chance that this would result in major internal conflict considering their existing ethnic unrest, and other social problems.

First of all, unrest depends entirely on the countries economic policies, people aren't going to revolt if they believe it would cause them to lose out economically. And the people at the top of Chinese government know this, they will eventually crack down on corruption, because they need to in order to survive.

This by itself is no big deal. Except, the Chinese as early as six years ago were internally creating military contingency plans for what to do if this oil supply were ever disrupted because of American foreign policy. They are anticipating one day needing to go head to head against the United States to protect their oil supply, and show no signs of caring what that will mean for their people.In fact there is a document that has been talked about in academia relating to this that originates in the Chinese military entitled the Malaccan Dilemma where the Chinese military policymakers were talking about the amount of their people they would have to throw away if our military ever used a single carrier group to disrupt that choke-point in Chinese oil import infrastructure. The jest of it is: as long as they could take out that first responding carrier, they don't care how many casualties on their part would be required nor the amount of civies that would be annihilated in the resulting airstrikes against their homeland.

This is highly speculative, they may have that in their plans, but would they really be willing to have a go at the US, I am not so sure. Whoever rules China surely knows that if the US wants it could annihilate China, and that they would be putting there own lives at risk by antagonizing the US.

Anyway China has the absolute to react if US tries to shutdown its supply, the US can't shit over the world forever and get away with it. China's rise could be beneficial in it provides a counterbalance to the US's global domination.

One of their emerging oil partners is Iran, who will get the bomb unless someone intervenes. If Iran were to get the bomb and nuke Israel, the United States would have to come to our ally's aid [the least reason for which being the fact that we created this Iran mess by the Iraqi War]. Yet since this would seriously get in the way of Chinese oil imports, it would unavoidably trigger China to respond against the US with military force; in other words WW3.

Iran won't nuke Israel, I am certain of that. It is not in Iran's interest. And China won't attack the US, if the US attacks Iran, I am also certain of that. It is not in China's interest.

[quote][b][user]yellowcarpet[/user][/b] said: [quote][b][user]sgath92[/user][/b] said: Capitalism has undoubtedly wet their appetite for our way of life. With the USSR this helped their system of government implode, but with China there is a chance that this would result in major internal conflict considering their existing ethnic unrest, and other social problems. [/quote] First of all, unrest depends entirely on the countries economic policies, people aren't going to revolt if they believe it would cause them to lose out economically. And the people at the top of Chinese government know this, they will eventually crack down on corruption, because they need to in order to survive. [quote]This by itself is no big deal. Except, the Chinese as early as six years ago were internally creating military contingency plans for what to do if this oil supply were ever disrupted because of American foreign policy. They are anticipating one day needing to go head to head against the United States to protect their oil supply, and show no signs of caring what that will mean for their people.In fact there is a document that has been talked about in academia relating to this that originates in the Chinese military entitled the Malaccan Dilemma where the Chinese military policymakers were talking about the amount of their people they would have to throw away if our military ever used a single carrier group to disrupt that choke-point in Chinese oil import infrastructure. The jest of it is: as long as they could take out that first responding carrier, they don't care how many casualties on their part would be required nor the amount of civies that would be annihilated in the resulting airstrikes against their homeland. [/quote] This is highly speculative, they may have that in their plans, but would they really be willing to have a go at the US, I am not so sure. Whoever rules China surely knows that if the US wants it could annihilate China, and that they would be putting there own lives at risk by antagonizing the US. Anyway China has the absolute to react if US tries to shutdown its supply, the US can't shit over the world forever and get away with it. China's rise could be beneficial in it provides a counterbalance to the US's global domination. [quote]One of their emerging oil partners is Iran, who [u]will[/u] get the bomb unless someone intervenes. If Iran were to get the bomb and nuke Israel, the United States would have to come to our ally's aid [the least reason for which being the fact that we created this Iran mess by the Iraqi War]. Yet since this would seriously get in the way of Chinese oil imports, it would unavoidably trigger China to respond against the US with military force; in other words WW3. [/quote] Iran won't nuke Israel, I am certain of that. It is not in Iran's interest. And China won't attack the US, if the US attacks Iran, I am also certain of that. It is not in China's interest.[/quote]

Permalink Quote
- sgath92 said...
- User
- 11 Feb 2012, 01:03
This was just one potential scenario. I am not saying it will happen, I am saying it can happen. Hopefully you're right.

Personally, it's not peak oil that worries me. It's peak metal that worries me. If the whole world lived as we did, there would not be the metal to go around. It would suck to stop using oil, but we could manage. But without metal I think countries would be feel far more desperate and far more willing to act irrationally.

[quote][b][user]sgath92[/user][/b] said: This was just one potential scenario. I am not saying it will happen, I am saying it [i]can[/i] happen. Hopefully you're right. Personally, it's not peak oil that worries me. It's peak metal that worries me. If the whole world lived as we did, there would not be the metal to go around. It would suck to stop using oil, but we could manage. But without metal I think countries would be feel far more desperate and far more willing to act irrationally.[/quote]

Permalink Quote
- yellowcarpet said...
- User
- 11 Feb 2012, 01:20
sgath92 said:
This was just one potential scenario. I am not saying it will happen, I am saying it can happen. Hopefully you're right.

Without trying to sound too vague, lots of things can happen.

[quote][b][user]yellowcarpet[/user][/b] said: [quote][b][user]sgath92[/user][/b] said: This was just one potential scenario. I am not saying it will happen, I am saying it [i]can[/i] happen. Hopefully you're right. [/quote] Without trying to sound too vague, lots of things [i]can[/i] happen. [/quote]

Permalink Quote
- DaddyPobbin said...
- User
- 11 Feb 2012, 01:30
steal_briefcase said:
dankine said:
steal_briefcase said:
I come back to these forums from time to time, in the hopes that there might actually be discussions (music discussions, on the last.fm forums? ahmhagahd), but all I ever see is a load of shitty game threads and you posting links to BBC articles.

I don't get why this place sucks so much. It's not like last.fm has any shortage of members. Maybe the forums are too 'hidden', but then... The kinda person that couldn't find them probably isn't the kinda person that would contribute much of worth, I guess.

>.<

someone can't read then.

I'm perfectly aware of what this sub-forum is for. The main point was that the OP just throws around BBC news articles, like that's all there is.

A load of them (e.g. the Britain becoming more 'Nordic' or whatever bullshit it was) aren't really 'news'. Why not use some slightly more in depth websites, or ones that don't just cover the same old areas of the world over and over?

Anyway, the points I would have made about it not being a Europe wide issue, and free trade, etc. seem to have been at least partially looked into. So fuck this place. ;pYou're criticising me, like dankine does for years and yet you post very little threads of your own.

The Mods have warned me not to use foul language on this forum or get riled up because of a the dickish behaviour of some on this particular forum but seriously - just post all these improvements your talking of and stop taking it out on moi.

dankine never has anything good to contribute, only snide and sarcastic remarks to people he thinks beneath them.

That's all I'll say, so if you plan a response i'll just have to read it and lump it.

"Or shall I perhaps know, That I was happy oft and oft before, Or must I be content with discontent..." - Edward Thomas, The Glory

[quote][b][user]DaddyPobbin[/user][/b] said: [quote][b][user]steal_briefcase[/user][/b] said: [quote][b][user]dankine[/user][/b] said: [quote][b][user]steal_briefcase[/user][/b] said: I come back to these forums from time to time, in the hopes that there might actually be discussions (music discussions, on the last.fm forums? ahmhagahd), but all I ever see is a load of shitty game threads and you posting links to BBC articles. I don't get why this place sucks so much. It's not like last.fm has any shortage of members. Maybe the forums are too 'hidden', but then... The kinda person that couldn't find them probably isn't the kinda person that would contribute much of worth, I guess.[/quote] >.< someone can't read then.[/quote] I'm perfectly aware of what this sub-forum is for. The main point was that the OP just throws around BBC news articles, like that's all there is. A load of them (e.g. the Britain becoming more 'Nordic' or whatever bullshit it was) aren't really 'news'. Why not use some slightly more in depth websites, or ones that don't just cover the same old areas of the world over and over? Anyway, the points I would have made about it not being a Europe wide issue, and free trade, etc. seem to have been at least partially looked into. So fuck this place. ;p[/quote]You're criticising me, like dankine does for years and yet you post very little threads of your own. The Mods have warned me not to use foul language on this forum or get riled up because of a the dickish behaviour of some on this particular forum but seriously - just post all these improvements your talking of and stop taking it out on moi. dankine never has anything good to contribute, only snide and sarcastic remarks to people he thinks beneath them. That's all I'll say, so if you plan a response i'll just have to read it and lump it.[/quote]

Permalink Quote
- lawynd said...
- User
- 11 Feb 2012, 12:00
Issendorf said:
You argue that you don't need a college degree to be able to do those skills. You are probably right, but it's a moot point. Employers won't look at you if you don't, making the college degree that much more important.Just because that's how things are, it doesn't mean we should be locked-in on this course and just 'make the best of it'. I spent ten years of my life working my way up from an apprentice to a senior technician in the civil engineering field. I was in charge of the design input to projects worth, in some cases, well into seven-figures; I ran a design team of six other people and sometimes more if I was pulling together resources from more than one team for a planning submission; I've authored several guidance documents on efficient design for street furniture, good practice cable design for traffic signals and interpretations and clarifications on statutes regarding road signs; I can plan, organise and execute a successful public exhibition to showcase a project, and I have a basic grounding in the fundamentals of foul and surface water drainage design and 3D modelling. Yet, because I took a route that valued experience over a certificate, when the sector contracted due to the global financial crisis I found myself out of work for 18 months (and counting) because pretty much any industry out there with any reasonable prospects is asking for a degree just to do a job a monkey could. This I'm sure comes across as big-headed but I could comfortably piss all over most of the people that have interviewed me in that time, let alone those who interviewed for the job alongside me. I have a broad and highly transferable skill-set but that lack of a piece of paper, because I'm not of an academic bent, has hamstrung me. Does that seem fair to you? There are an awful lot of idiots out there with degrees, solely because the way they think matches up with academic study perfectly, so quite clearly it's a pointless system if it's failing those of us who aren't quite the square peg that a university wants us to be.

yellowcarpet said:
sgath92 said:
One of their emerging oil partners is Iran, who will get the bomb unless someone intervenes. If Iran were to get the bomb and nuke Israel, the United States would have to come to our ally's aid [the least reason for which being the fact that we created this Iran mess by the Iraqi War]. Yet since this would seriously get in the way of Chinese oil imports, it would unavoidably trigger China to respond against the US with military force; in other words WW3.

Iran won't nuke Israel, I am certain of that. It is not in Iran's interest. And China won't attack the US, if the US attacks Iran, I am also certain of that. It is not in China's interest.There's more chance of Israel going off the reservation and nuking Iran, IMO. I'm more scared of the fundamentalist Jews that already have fissile warheads than I am the fundamentalist Muslims who *might* one day create a fissile warhead.

Official recorder of Schrödinger's Tampon.

Quote of the moment - selfsurprise:
"My rolo yoghurt pots bring 'dem kids to the yard, and i'm like 'its better than ya'lls'
yer damn right its better than ya'lls'
I can teach you but i'll have to charge (+VAT, duty stamp tax, etc et all)"

[quote][b][user]lawynd[/user][/b] said: [quote][b][user]Issendorf[/user][/b] said: You argue that you don't need a college degree to be able to do those skills. You are probably right, but it's a moot point. Employers won't look at you if you don't, making the college degree that much more important.[/quote]Just because that's how things are, it doesn't mean we should be locked-in on this course and just 'make the best of it'. I spent ten years of my life working my way up from an apprentice to a senior technician in the civil engineering field. I was in charge of the design input to projects worth, in some cases, well into seven-figures; I ran a design team of six other people and sometimes more if I was pulling together resources from more than one team for a planning submission; I've authored several guidance documents on efficient design for street furniture, good practice cable design for traffic signals and interpretations and clarifications on statutes regarding road signs; I can plan, organise and execute a successful public exhibition to showcase a project, and I have a basic grounding in the fundamentals of foul and surface water drainage design and 3D modelling. Yet, because I took a route that valued experience over a certificate, when the sector contracted due to the global financial crisis I found myself out of work for 18 months (and counting) because pretty much any industry out there with any reasonable prospects is asking for a degree just to do a job a monkey could. This I'm sure comes across as big-headed but I could comfortably piss all over most of the people that have interviewed me in that time, let alone those who interviewed for the job alongside me. I have a broad and highly transferable skill-set but that lack of a piece of paper, because I'm not of an academic bent, has hamstrung me. Does that seem fair to you? There are an awful lot of idiots out there with degrees, solely because the way they think matches up with academic study perfectly, so quite clearly it's a pointless system if it's failing those of us who aren't quite the square peg that a university wants us to be. [quote][b][user]yellowcarpet[/user][/b] said: [quote][b][user]sgath92[/user][/b] said: One of their emerging oil partners is Iran, who [u]will[/u] get the bomb unless someone intervenes. If Iran were to get the bomb and nuke Israel, the United States would have to come to our ally's aid [the least reason for which being the fact that we created this Iran mess by the Iraqi War]. Yet since this would seriously get in the way of Chinese oil imports, it would unavoidably trigger China to respond against the US with military force; in other words WW3. [/quote] Iran won't nuke Israel, I am certain of that. It is not in Iran's interest. And China won't attack the US, if the US attacks Iran, I am also certain of that. It is not in China's interest.[/quote]There's more chance of Israel going off the reservation and nuking Iran, IMO. I'm more scared of the fundamentalist Jews that already have fissile warheads than I am the fundamentalist Muslims who *might* one day create a fissile warhead.[/quote]

Permalink Quote
- dankine said...
- User
- 11 Feb 2012, 14:40
no, pobbin. I've only snide and sarcastic things to say to you. big difference.

"very little threads of your own" - apart from that being complete dross, why do I need to post a lot to say what you post is dull c/p?

"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
"I don't want to believe, I want to know"

Auto Corrections Group

[quote][b][user]dankine[/user][/b] said: no, pobbin. I've only snide and sarcastic things to say to you. big difference. "very little threads of your own" - apart from that being complete dross, why do I need to post a lot to say what you post is dull c/p?[/quote]

Permalink Quote
- sgath92 said...
- User
- 11 Feb 2012, 17:32
lawynd said:
There are an awful lot of idiots out there with degrees, solely because the way they think matches up with academic study perfectly, so quite clearly it's a pointless system if it's failing those of us who aren't quite the square peg that a university wants us to be.

Making college compulsory necessarily makes the cost of education increase [increase in demand], but it also makes the quality of schooling decrease exponentially because the system is designed to assume that everyone "should" go to college.

Twenty+ years ago if someone applied to a university and did not have basic, essential skills like reading comprehension the university would unquestionably turn them down. Today? As long as you have a high school diploma they simply don't care about your deficiencies and will put you in these "intermediate" courses designed to teach you stuff you should have learned in middle school. This in return helps decrease the quality of public school by encouraging their administrators to think "It's ok if they can't do this, as long as they pass the state tests they'll just learn what they need to at college." But that's not what college is for! College is not supposed to be there to play catch-up with the stuff you somehow couldn't manage to learn in public school. I was in a 400-level course 9 years ago with a professor who started every class with a geography quiz. He had been doing this for a few years because he found it was no longer being taught in public schools. To his horror, in a private school in 400 level classes he was getting American college students who couldn't find Mexico on a map. And these were perfectly functional students. We're not talking about people who are slow because of physical or mental defect. We're not talking about the types of people who would have not known this because of falling threw the cracks 40 years ago by dropping out. These were kids who had finished public school with a high enough grade to get in, did reasonably well on the SATs, did reasonably well in three years of college already; and were 1-2 semesters from graduating with a BS! The only reason why some of them couldn't do these simple tasks was because of how screwed up the schooling system as whole has been for their generation.

Yet this screwed up schooling system is costing them 2-3 times as much as it did their parents, and they're being weighed down with student loans they cannot shed through bankruptcy if they graduate and find it takes them 10 years to land a "real" job [by this I mean one that uses their degree, not a min wage reatil or fast food job]. I mentioned earlier that student debtors are held to a standard that does not exist for any other kind of debt?

Let me explain that more. In the US if you are a true dead beat debtor living beyond your means by using credit cards and/or multiple mortgages on your house it really isn't hard to shed that debt through bankruptcy. It still sucks to do it & it;ll hurt your credit but it can be done if you have to. And then life goes on.

Unforeseen medical debt from having a medical emergency while uninsured? Same applies. It's actually the leading cause of bankruptcy in the United States [despite the stereotype of middle class families living too well for their means]. This says something about our healthcare system, but it also says something about how doable bankrupcy for medical debtors is. They can eventually shed the debts and move on. Even corporations can shed their debts if they become too weighed down by pension programs that have gone into the red.

Yet if someone goes to college and racks up student loans, those loans simply don't go away. Whether your financial difficulties are your own fault [for picking a major like philosophy where there are no jobs that take advantage of it], or whether it's due to stuff purely outside of your control [like the market being destroyed by the housing market, or unforeseen medical problems keeping you from being able to work] you can not get away from the student debt. It will follow you to the grave. If you can't pay on it, it'll just keep growing and growing and growing and eventually you'll be stuck with debt you'd likely not be able to pay off in your lifetime. This is not the way it always worked. In fact under the right circumstances students used to be able to get rid of their debt through bankruptcy like any other person or corporation could. Until President Bush "reformed" the way student debt is handled.

[quote][b][user]sgath92[/user][/b] said: [quote][b][user]lawynd[/user][/b] said: There are an awful lot of idiots out there with degrees, solely because the way they think matches up with academic study perfectly, so quite clearly it's a pointless system if it's failing those of us who aren't quite the square peg that a university wants us to be.[/quote] Making college compulsory necessarily makes the cost of education increase [increase in demand], but it also makes the quality of schooling decrease exponentially because the system is designed to assume that everyone "should" go to college. Twenty+ years ago if someone applied to a university and did not have basic, essential skills like reading comprehension the university would unquestionably turn them down. Today? As long as you have a high school diploma they simply don't care about your deficiencies and will put you in these "intermediate" courses designed to teach you stuff you [u]should[/u] have learned in middle school. This in return helps decrease the quality of public school by encouraging their administrators to think "It's ok if they can't do this, as long as they pass the state tests they'll just learn what they need to at college." But that's not what college is for! College is not supposed to be there to play catch-up with the stuff you somehow couldn't manage to learn in public school. I was in a 400-level course 9 years ago with a professor who started every class with a geography quiz. He had been doing this for a few years because he found it was no longer being taught in public schools. To his horror, in a private school in 400 level classes he was getting American [i]college students who couldn't find [b]Mexico[/b] on a map[/i]. And these were perfectly functional students. We're not talking about people who are slow because of physical or mental defect. We're not talking about the types of people who would have not known this because of falling threw the cracks 40 years ago by dropping out. These were kids who had finished public school with a high enough grade to get in, did reasonably well on the SATs, did reasonably well in three years of college already; and were 1-2 semesters from graduating with a BS! The only reason why some of them couldn't do these simple tasks was because of how screwed up the schooling system as whole has been for their generation. Yet this screwed up schooling system is costing them 2-3 times as much as it did their parents, and they're being weighed down with student loans they cannot shed through bankruptcy if they graduate and find it takes them 10 years to land a "real" job [by this I mean one that uses their degree, not a min wage reatil or fast food job]. I mentioned earlier that student debtors are held to a standard that does not exist for any other kind of debt? Let me explain that more. In the US if you are a true dead beat debtor living beyond your means by using credit cards and/or multiple mortgages on your house it really isn't hard to shed that debt through bankruptcy. It still sucks to do it & it;ll hurt your credit but it can be done if you [u]have[/u] to. And then life goes on. Unforeseen medical debt from having a medical emergency while uninsured? Same applies. It's actually the leading cause of bankruptcy in the United States [despite the stereotype of middle class families living too well for their means]. This says something about our healthcare system, but it also says something about how doable bankrupcy for medical debtors is. They can eventually shed the debts and move on. Even corporations can shed their debts if they become too weighed down by pension programs that have gone into the red. Yet if someone goes to college and racks up student loans, those loans simply don't go away. Whether your financial difficulties are your own fault [for picking a major like philosophy where there are no jobs that take advantage of it], or whether it's due to stuff purely outside of your control [like the market being destroyed by the housing market, or unforeseen medical problems keeping you from being able to work] you can not get away from the student debt. It will follow you to the grave. If you can't pay on it, it'll just keep growing and growing and growing and eventually you'll be stuck with debt you'd likely not be able to pay off in your lifetime. This is not the way it always worked. In fact under the right circumstances students used to be able to get rid of their debt through bankruptcy like any other person or corporation could. Until President Bush "reformed" the way student debt is handled.[/quote]

Permalink Quote
- sgath92 said...
- User
- 11 Feb 2012, 18:02
lawynd said:
There's more chance of Israel going off the reservation and nuking Iran, IMO. I'm more scared of the fundamentalist Jews that already have fissile warheads than I am the fundamentalist Muslims who *might* one day create a fissile warhead.

I have to disagree. They're surrounded by a numerically superior force of hostile nations, and the nukes were intended to be their great last stand for if it ever came down to it.

Certainly, the Israelis have more restraint in general than the US does. If a state-sanctioned terrorist group akin to Hezbollah were launching thousands of rockets into our suburbs we would steam roll everyone affiliated with the launches and turn the countries involved to glass.

We know Iran makes official government decrees that they intend to destroy Israel. Even as gun-ho as we are, we don't do stuff like that. One has to wonder what a country that doesn't even hide it's long term aims/wishes would do if given ample enough military capacities. Its a scary thought, and one that worries me more than say, N. Korea [who would have to answer to the Chinese if they did anything truly stupid].

[quote][b][user]sgath92[/user][/b] said: [quote][b][user]lawynd[/user][/b] said: There's more chance of Israel going off the reservation and nuking Iran, IMO. I'm more scared of the fundamentalist Jews that already have fissile warheads than I am the fundamentalist Muslims who *might* one day create a fissile warhead.[/quote] I have to disagree. They're surrounded by a numerically superior force of hostile nations, and the nukes were intended to be their great last stand for if it ever came down to it. Certainly, the Israelis have more restraint in general than the US does. If a state-sanctioned terrorist group akin to Hezbollah were launching thousands of rockets into our suburbs we would steam roll everyone affiliated with the launches and turn the countries involved to glass. We know Iran makes official government decrees that they intend to destroy Israel. Even as gun-ho as we are, we don't do stuff like that. One has to wonder what a country that [i]doesn't even hide[/i] it's long term aims/wishes would do if given ample enough military capacities. Its a scary thought, and one that worries me more than say, N. Korea [who would have to answer to the Chinese if they did anything truly stupid].[/quote]

Permalink Quote
- yellowcarpet said...
- User
- 11 Feb 2012, 21:21
^ I am confident Israel will attack Iran before Iran attacks Israel. Israel has gone into Syria and Iraq before to destroy nuclear facilities. For all the greater numbers of Israels enemies, Israel the US. They don't.
An the statement about Iran destroy Israel, that was a mistranslation. Just the media fails to point that out. Iran hasn't directly attacked Israel yet, why should we think they would do so now.

[quote][b][user]yellowcarpet[/user][/b] said: ^ I am confident Israel will attack Iran before Iran attacks Israel. Israel has gone into Syria and Iraq before to destroy nuclear facilities. For all the greater numbers of Israels enemies, Israel the US. They don't. An the statement about Iran destroy Israel, that was a mistranslation. Just the media fails to point that out. Iran hasn't directly attacked Israel yet, why should we think they would do so now.[/quote]

Permalink Quote
- Issendorf said...
- User
- 11 Feb 2012, 21:51
lawynd said:
Issendorf said:
You argue that you don't need a college degree to be able to do those skills. You are probably right, but it's a moot point. Employers won't look at you if you don't, making the college degree that much more important.Just because that's how things are, it doesn't mean we should be locked-in on this course and just 'make the best of it'. I spent ten years of my life working my way up from an apprentice to a senior technician in the civil engineering field. I was in charge of the design input to projects worth, in some cases, well into seven-figures; I ran a design team of six other people and sometimes more if I was pulling together resources from more than one team for a planning submission; I've authored several guidance documents on efficient design for street furniture, good practice cable design for traffic signals and interpretations and clarifications on statutes regarding road signs; I can plan, organise and execute a successful public exhibition to showcase a project, and I have a basic grounding in the fundamentals of foul and surface water drainage design and 3D modelling. Yet, because I took a route that valued experience over a certificate, when the sector contracted due to the global financial crisis I found myself out of work for 18 months (and counting) because pretty much any industry out there with any reasonable prospects is asking for a degree just to do a job a monkey could. This I'm sure comes across as big-headed but I could comfortably piss all over most of the people that have interviewed me in that time, let alone those who interviewed for the job alongside me. I have a broad and highly transferable skill-set but that lack of a piece of paper, because I'm not of an academic bent, has hamstrung me. Does that seem fair to you?

No, it isn't fair, but neither is life. Nothing we do in terms of making things "right" in the world will ever work nearly as well as we think it will.

[quote][b][user]Issendorf[/user][/b] said: [quote][b][user]lawynd[/user][/b] said: [quote][b][user]Issendorf[/user][/b] said: You argue that you don't need a college degree to be able to do those skills. You are probably right, but it's a moot point. Employers won't look at you if you don't, making the college degree that much more important.[/quote]Just because that's how things are, it doesn't mean we should be locked-in on this course and just 'make the best of it'. I spent ten years of my life working my way up from an apprentice to a senior technician in the civil engineering field. I was in charge of the design input to projects worth, in some cases, well into seven-figures; I ran a design team of six other people and sometimes more if I was pulling together resources from more than one team for a planning submission; I've authored several guidance documents on efficient design for street furniture, good practice cable design for traffic signals and interpretations and clarifications on statutes regarding road signs; I can plan, organise and execute a successful public exhibition to showcase a project, and I have a basic grounding in the fundamentals of foul and surface water drainage design and 3D modelling. Yet, because I took a route that valued experience over a certificate, when the sector contracted due to the global financial crisis I found myself out of work for 18 months (and counting) because pretty much any industry out there with any reasonable prospects is asking for a degree just to do a job a monkey could. This I'm sure comes across as big-headed but I could comfortably piss all over most of the people that have interviewed me in that time, let alone those who interviewed for the job alongside me. I have a broad and highly transferable skill-set but that lack of a piece of paper, because I'm not of an academic bent, has hamstrung me. Does that seem fair to you? [/quote] No, it isn't fair, but neither is life. Nothing we do in terms of making things "right" in the world will ever work nearly as well as we think it will.[/quote]

Permalink Quote
- lawynd said...
- User
- 12 Feb 2012, 11:26
That's officially the most nihilist post I've read on last.fm - congratulations.

Fortunately, here at least, people are starting to come to their senses on this score, partly thanks to the obscene sums that universities are now charging students, and I fully expect to see a completely different education landscape in the next five years.

Official recorder of Schrödinger's Tampon.

Quote of the moment - selfsurprise:
"My rolo yoghurt pots bring 'dem kids to the yard, and i'm like 'its better than ya'lls'
yer damn right its better than ya'lls'
I can teach you but i'll have to charge (+VAT, duty stamp tax, etc et all)"

[quote][b][user]lawynd[/user][/b] said: That's officially the most nihilist post I've read on last.fm - congratulations. Fortunately, here at least, people are starting to come to their senses on this score, partly thanks to the obscene sums that universities are now charging students, and I fully expect to see a completely different education landscape in the next five years.[/quote]

Permalink Quote
- Noctem-Aeternam said...
- User
- 12 Feb 2012, 13:14
dankine said:Yeah Pobbin c/ps a load of crap, mostly about Ireland, but a lot of it just sinks cos it is dull and just c/p with a poorly written "intro".

dankine no, pobbin. I've only snide and sarcastic things to say to you. big difference.

"very little threads of your own" - apart from that being complete dross, why do I need to post a lot to say what you post is dull c/p?

+1

The walls of this chamber ,were made to set you free ,So soft, so clean ,My friend, where have you been ,I'm a revolutionary ,A christian fairy tale ,I'm a missionary ,A visionary anarchist ,I'm a full moon fever ,I'm a non-believer ,I have hope and I regret ,I accept and I neglect

[quote][b][user]Noctem-Aeternam[/user][/b] said: [quote][b][user]dankine [/user][/b] said:Yeah Pobbin c/ps a load of crap, mostly about Ireland, but a lot of it just sinks cos it is dull and just c/p with a poorly written "intro".[/quote] [quote][b][user]dankine [/user][/b]no, pobbin. I've only snide and sarcastic things to say to you. big difference. "very little threads of your own" - apart from that being complete dross, why do I need to post a lot to say what you post is dull c/p?[/quote] +1[/quote]

Permalink Quote
- Issendorf said...
- User
- 12 Feb 2012, 17:27
lawynd said:
That's officially the most nihilist post I've read on last.fm - congratulations.

Thank you!

[quote][b][user]Issendorf[/user][/b] said: [quote][b][user]lawynd[/user][/b] said: That's officially the most nihilist post I've read on last.fm - congratulations. [/quote] Thank you![/quote]

Permalink Quote

Anonymous users may not post messages. Please log in or create an account to post in the forums.