► Show Top 10 Hot Links

Posts Tagged ‘Progressives’

College Tuition: The Next Speculative Bubble To Burst

by 1389AD ( 159 Comments › )
Filed under Academia, Education, Progressives at September 15th, 2010 - 11:30 am

Not long ago, I asked why the US government was making such a push for high-tech education for American students, while at the same time, doing everything possible to eliminate the job opportunities that would allow high-tech graduates to pay back their student loans. My conclusion was that a whole generation of students were deliberately being scammed into taking on these loans, which cannot be discharged in bankruptcy, so as to create a new class of peons in the US. (See Just Say No to Student Loans for High-Tech Education.)

It turns out that there is much more to the story than that.

What makes a speculative bubble?

A speculative bubble inflates when people continue investing in something that they anticipate will give them a payoff in the future, without regard to whether that investment is based on any genuine worth that could sustain the anticipated rise in price.

Take the housing bubble, for example. People took out “liar’s loans” to buy and sell property that they could not afford, figuring that the housing prices would keep going up indefinitely. Problem is, housing prices cannot keep going up indefinitely, because in the long run, housing prices are based on people’s ability to pay, which, in turn, is based on both the local and the national economy. For example, if houses in the suburbs of a metropolitan area cost approximately half a million dollars, but there are too few high-income jobs in that metro area compared to the number of expensive houses, then the excess houses will remain unsold until their prices come down. That will drive down the price for anybody who already owns such a house and wants to sell it. People who own rental property face similar constraints; the amount of rent that tenants can pay is based on what they can earn from the jobs in the area.

When the economy went sour, everybody who bought property at inflated prices was affected at once. That’s why we have so many foreclosed houses, and so many mortgages that are “upside down” – meaning that more is owed on them than the house is worth.

Why college tuition is the next bubble

What does this have to do with college tuition? Plenty, as it turns out. Forget about the propaganda spewed by liberal-arts “educators” who keep themselves in business by shilling for an expensive education because it supposedly makes young people into upstanding citizens of good character (actually, it does nothing of the sort). Tuition is an investment that must be evaluated just like any other investment.

As we all know, the real reason most people spend their money on a college education is so that they, or their offspring, can earn much more in the future than they would without that diploma. What happens when the college tuition gets to be so expensive that the cost of repaying student loans will wipe out, or more than wipe out, the lifetime earnings advantage? Suppose you have enough money saved up that you do not need to take out student loans. Even then, you still have to consider whether you could have gotten a better long-term payoff for yourself or your children by investing that money in something other than tuition.

Back to School

September 5, 2010 – By Roger Kimball

“New Houses were built in every direction; an illusory prosperity shone over the land, and so dazzled the eyes of the whole nation, that none could see the dark cloud on the horizon announcing the storm that was too rapidly approaching.”

—Charles Mackay, Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds

It wasn’t that long ago that I was having lunch with the father of a friend at Mory’s, the venerable dining club at Yale, and he said to me: “Do you realize, Roger, that tuition at Yale next year will be $10,000? Ten-thousand dollars.” We paused for a moment over the Golden Buck to savor this enormous sum.

Ten-thousand dollars per annum was indeed a tidy sum. It is still is. But if you hope to join the Whiffenpoofs next year, it’s going to cost someone at least $52,900.

Exactly who is going to be presented with that tab depends on a number of factors, some of which I’ll mention in a moment. But first let’s step back and ask this embarrassing question: Is it worth it?

Is four years at Yale (or Harvard, Princeton, or any other “competitive” college) worth $53,000 x 4 plus annual tuition increases for a grand total (assuming you are entering right now) of roughly a quarter of a million dollars?

This is a question that, to the consternation of academic administrators, more and more parents — not to mention responsible teenagers — are asking themselves.

I took my epigraph from Charles Mackay’s Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds, a remorseless anatomy of financial “bubbles” from the Mississippi Scheme and South Sea Bubble to Tulipomania in 17th-century Holland and beyond. “At last, . . . the more prudent began to see that this folly could not last forever. . . . It was seen that somebody must lose fearfully in the end.”

Glenn Reynolds, a lawyer and genius loci of the Instapundit blog, has for many months been been cataloguing signs of the higher education bubble. Writing recently in the Washington Examiner, Reynolds explained the process:

“The buyers think what they’re buying will appreciate in value, making them rich in the future. The product grows more and more elaborate, and more and more expensive, but the expense is offset by cheap credit provided by sellers eager to encourage buyers to buy.

Buyers see that everyone else is taking on mounds of debt, and so are more comfortable when they do so themselves; besides, for a generation, the value of what they’re buying has gone up steadily. What could go wrong? Everything continues smoothly until, at some point, it doesn’t.”

Have we reached that point in higher education? Over at Instapundit, Reynolds recently linked to an illuminating article at “TaxProf Blog” which includes this illuminating chart comparing the rise in housing prices with college tuition since 1978.

Graph showing the skyrocketing rise in college tuition cost, compared to the CPI and the housing bubble

Read the rest.

Avvo.com: 8 Reasons College Tuition Is the Next Bubble to Burst

Tuition has been increasing at such an alarming rate that some say we’re witnessing yet another bubble in America — this time not in the stock market or in housing, but in college tuition.

Stephen Burd, of the Education Policy Program at the New America Foundation, explains in this interview how federal student loans became non dischargeable in bankruptcy in 1998, and then private loans became non dischargeable as well in 2005. Taken together, these laws mean that students who are overpaying for degrees now with borrowed money will suffer the consequences for life.

Read the rest.

While the following list summarizes the author’s reasoning for why the bubble is ready to burst, it’s worthwhile to read the article itself for the statistics and the rationale to back up each point:

  • Tuition is, and has been, increasing at double triple the rate of inflation…
  • Students are borrowing more than ever to pay for college…
  • For profit colleges are paying homeless people to take out federal loans to enroll…
  • Colleges are on a non-teaching staff hiring spree that far outpaces enrollment…
  • For profit reliance on federal loans has reached an all time high…
  • Schools are spending on luxurious amenities to lure in more students…
  • College president salaries are sky high, even in a historical economic downturn…
  • The student loan problem cuts across all schools, for profit and nonprofit…

As with the recent housing bubble and every other speculative bubble, there is always evidence of widespread corrupt practices on the part of those seeking to enrich themselves before the bubble bursts. Just follow the money.

Debt Bubble: Will the Market Crash Because of College Costs?

The college tuition bubble has been the result of demographics, parents and educators giving young people poor advice, increasing government assistance, and (illegal) collusion between universities and financial institutions. The so-called Baby Boomlet generation — which dwarfed Generation X in size — began going to college in the late 1990s and 2000s, and they had grown up with parents and teachers insisting that a college education was the only way to become successful. At same time, the increasing affluence of the middle class in developing countries created a large number of people who were eager to get a college degree in the United States as well. Demand and prices rose.

And as the demand rose, so did the competition for a limited number of available spaces at universities. So colleges began building luxurious dormitories, expensive facilities, decent cafeteria food, and other items geared towards attracting students. All of this was expen­sive — though this factor is mitigated by the fact that private universities sat on endowments of millions or billions of dollars (at least until the financial crisis).

The icing on the cake was the fact that financial aid departments at universities made deals with financial institutions. Here is just one example:

Colleges across the country are taking kickbacks from student loan companies and reaping other benefits while making it harder for students to get better deals on their loans, the state attorney general has charged.

New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo said Thursday an investigation he began last month into the $85 billion student loan industry found numerous arrangements made to benefit schools and lenders over the students.

Cuomo’s office is investigating at least six lenders: the nation’s largest student-loan provider SLM Corp. — commonly known as Sallie Mae; Nelnet Inc.; Education Finance Partners Inc.; Edu­Cap Inc.; the College Board; and CIT Group Inc.

As a result, of these factors, the return on a college investment has been decreasing over time. Moreover, here is an interesting infographic on how student-loan debt has increasingly enslaved young people since the 1960s.

Read the rest.

Now what?

At this point, I suggest that tuition at US colleges has become so expensive, and the job prospects for educated Americans so meager, that if you plan to remain in the US, you should wait for the tuition bubble to burst, and costs to drop drastically, before you even consider going to college or sending your kids there.

I also suggest that, if you have any discretionary funds, and not many people do these days, you look carefully at what is actually going on at your alma mater. Academia in general has been insulated from the demands of the real world for far too long, and has become a haven for all of the wrong types of people, who nonetheless flatter themselves that they are our betters. (For a long-overdue, and rather shocking, evisceration of some of the denizens of academia, see Victor Davis Hanson: We Are Ruled by Professors.)

Whenever your alma mater asks for your contributions, before you write that check, you might want to make sure that your money won’t be supporting any of the manifold varieties of leftist or pro-jihadist indoctrination that seek to destroy everything that you stand for.


UPDATE:

Here is another excellent, and very readable, article on this topic (h/t: Snork):

The Bubble: Higher Education’s Precarious Hold on Consumer Confidence

This article makes many valid points, for example:

…This argument subsumes several other points: that a nation’s productivity really does correlate closely with the percentage of the population holding college degrees; that the knowledge and skills cultivated by our current system of higher education generally match the developing and future needs of the marketplace; and that the American public would prefer a system of higher education underwritten to a much greater degree by the taxpayer.

Response: The view that higher education can thrive by growing still larger and that the costs can be shifted away from the tuition-paying student to the “government” is unrealistic, and all the underlying premises of this argument are doubtful. The nation that currently has the highest percentage of college graduates, at 45 percent, is Russia—which is nobody’s model of economic prosperity and competitiveness. The American public has little confidence in the overall quality of our higher education system. It has simply viewed itself as lacking attractive alternatives. The public is not inclined to pay more and more into a system that has proven to be ineffectual.

The public policy counsel that we have to keep the present system afloat for fear of some economic catastrophe relies on fear of the unknown. The reality is that Americans will continue to seek both practical knowledge and cultural achievement even if the system of higher education that has grown up largely since the Higher Education Act of 1965 begins to unravel. New institutions will arise to meet the actual needs. The best parts of the old institutions will survive. We won’t face economic catastrophe or an uneducated mass. There are more ways to educate people than the advocates of our current system realize.

Actually, the Russian economy has been doing better in recent years; the turning point came when they stopped following the lead of the Harvard “advisors” and other carpetbaggers with academic credentials, who came in after the dissolution of the former Soviet Union to plunder whatever they could.

Higher education also has expensive ideological commitments that it can’t easily shrug off, including diversity, feminism, and sustainability. Each of these is a major cost driver that, worse, is diffused throughout the budget and kept obscure. Colleges don’t want their trustees or anyone else trying to calculate what they spend annually to engage in the exercises of identity politics. A cost that can’t be tracked is a cost that can’t be controlled.

That, to me, says it all.


Christie for President

by Bob in Breckenridge ( 77 Comments › )
Filed under Academia, Democratic Party, Economy, Education, Politics, Progressives, Republican Party at September 13th, 2010 - 6:30 pm

Gov. Chris Christie, R-NJ, seems to be the real deal. We’ve posted videos of him here before smacking down a lib reporter from the state-controlled media, and telling a whining woman that teachers should quit if they don’t like how much they’re paid.

Here’s yet another great video of him smacking down a lib teacher who complained about teachers being laid off, blaming Christie’s budget cuts.

Christie’s retort to this dolt about how the teachers’ union’s were mostly responsible these layoffs (because they refused to take a one year salary freeze and contribute a measly 1½% of their healthcare costs) is priceless…and spot-on!

Hat tip to Denny@ www.grouchyoldcripple.com

Don’t Try To Tell Me Obama Is Not A Muslim

by 1389AD ( 73 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Election 2008, Islam, Leftist-Islamic Alliance, Palestinians, Polls, Saudi Arabia at September 5th, 2010 - 2:00 pm

(Originally posted on 1389 Blog)
By CzechRebel

I have had more than enough of the speculation about whether Obama is a Muslim or not. The only way that you could argue that he is not a Muslim would be to make up your own definition of “Muslim” that is meant to exclude him.

Muslims consider the child of a Muslim father to be a Muslim. I am not aware of any exceptions. Many Muslims who are true to the tenets of their faith believe that a Muslim who truly adopts another faith is guilty of a capital offense and should be killed. There has never been any question that Barack Hussein Obama’s father was a Muslim. In addition, Barry’s Muslim stepfather raised him as a Muslim. Given those facts, we can conclude that Muslims believe that Obama is a Muslim. Were that not so, those Muslims who believe in the stated tenets of their faith would be calling for Obama’s execution as an apostate from Islam.

American Muslims support Obama

Do Muslims find Obama offensive? Apparently, not in America! A recent Gallup poll showed that a whopping 78% of the American Muslim population approve of the Obama Administration. All other religious groups showed a lesser level of approval. If Obama were a man who had left the Islamic faith, American Muslims would certainly not approve of him, and some would risk imprisonment to call for his death.

Obama in Muslim garb with Somali religious leader

Saudi Muslims certainly accept Obama

…Many thanks to Russkiy for translating this article. The translator has highlighted those portions of the text that he considers notable:

The image which appeared recently of Barack Hussein Obama wearing traditional Islamic clothing, accompanied by a Somali religious leader, has steered emotions and caused a wave of severe disapproval amongst American voters. A similar wave of anger and discontent came from Obama supporters, who accused his opponent Hillary Clinton of trying to tarnish his reputation by means of leaking this image to the public. Obama, in response to the rumour of his being a closet Muslim, has made an official statement, denying the rumours suggesting he a Muslim and stated that he has in fact been a devout Christian for more than twenty years, and that he regularly attends church services.

The sad part in all this is the fact that if he is indeed a Muslim, he has to resort to taqiyya and concealment in order to keep his chances of becoming president alive. In the light of September 11 events, and following the barrage of images, in which firebrand Islamic clerics incite terrorism, while at the same time no religious authority to this day has come out to condemn any of the major terrorist attacks and refute religious justifications terrorists rely upon in order to recruit followers, Islam has become associated with terrorism. The followers of Islam are now seen as crazy lunatics full of hate, intent on fighting the entire world, while at the same time being unable to manage their own affairs and reconcile themselves with the modernity. All this has blackened the face of Islam to such an extent that it became a liability and a sure thing to destroy campaign chances of the hopeful presidential nominee.

These stupid terrorist fools do not realise and are incapable of appreciating such a rare and precious opportunity for a Muslim to occupy the Oval Office. By their actions they probably have ruined chances of this Muslim immigrant from becoming president of the United States.

Read the rest.

Obviously, Obama did make it into the White House, depite the misgivings expressed in the above article, which came out before the 2008 US elections. I present it here as evidence that the Muslims in Saudi Arabia take it for granted that Obama is one of them.

Could Obama be a secret apostate from Islam?

So, there is no question that Obama is considered a Muslim in the Muslim community. But could he be a secret apostate, a man who has left the Islamic faith, though able to fool nearly all Muslims on this planet that he had not? Well, if that were so, he would be the opposite of Ronald Reagan in one more way. (Obama has already made a recession into a depression by increasing taxes and spending, in contrast to Reagan, who brought the country out of a recession by cutting taxes and spending.) If Obama is not a Muslim, then he is a great actor and will have a career waiting for him as a thespian when he leaves office. In fact, he would be such a good actor that all the films featuring actor Ronald Reagan would pale by comparison.

Look at the evidence

Obama’s behavior has been such that implies he is a Muslim, for example: his refusal to speak in the presence of a cross; his amusement at the ridicule of Jews’ and Christians’ holy book; his refusal to bring his wife to Islamic-dominated countries; his word choices such as “Islamic Republic of Iran” rather than “Iran” and “holy Koran” rather than “Koran”; he includes himself when speaking of the Muslim community; along with other little reminders that he wholeheartedly supports Islam. There were no Christmas presents for Malia and Sasha Obama, and the White House nativity scene almost got the boot. (See More Evidence that Obama is a Muslim and Even More Evidence that Obama is a Muslim.)

Other than having attended Jeremiah Wright’s Caucasian-hating ‘church,’ Obama has shown no signs of being anything other than a Muslim.

Obama is first in line to support the Ground Zero Mega Mosque, situated in a location to remind us of the Islamic 9-11 victory. Yet, I

Enough with the ‘Coexist’ stickers already!

by 1389AD ( 89 Comments › )
Filed under Leftist-Islamic Alliance, Multiculturalism, Political Correctness at August 28th, 2010 - 10:00 am

It takes a particular type of self-righteous and aggressive ignoramus to think that the real evils of this world will all go away if enough people can be shamed or bullied into denying that those evils exist.

Case in point:

Russell Simmons Unveils ‘Coexist’ Banner Near Ground Zero

Huge 'coexist' symbol banner in the apartment windows of Russell Simmons near Ground Zero

Simmons’ apartment on Liberty St. overlooks Ground Zero. Each letter of the banner features different religious and spiritual symbols. Like Bloomberg, Simmons is a big supporter of the planned center: “I was trying to figure out ways I could reach people and promote a message of tolerance…The fact that it is a public discussion, that there’s so many against it is what I think is disappointing to me, that so many people don’t know that we founded our country on the First Amendment,” he told the AP.

Read the rest.


I am not the only one to complain

Recently, I have noticed that I am not the only one who despises this asinine symbolic slogan:

YouTube: Allen West Hates the Co-Exist Bumper Sticker
h/t: Kitman TV

More of Allen West’s speech here.


Coexist Reaction: The Good, The Bad, The Just Plain Silly

By Charlie Sykes
Story Created: May 15, 2009
(Story Updated: May 15, 2009)

As John McAdams sums up the story so far:

It all started with a parody from Tom McMahon, who was aggravated by the extremely smug and intellectually slovenly bumper sticker in which a variety of religious symbols spell out “COEXIST.”

McMahon produced a parody bumper sticker with Nazi and Communist symbols substituted.

His point, of course, was that some religious views are simply impossible to coexist with, and must (like Nazism and Communism) be fought.

Read the rest.


Update: Here’s another parody, courtesy of Mike C. on Blogmocracy:

‘Coexist’ in Firearm Manufacturer Logos

Parody of 'Coexist' bumper sticker spelled out in firearm manufacturers' logos


The underlying spiritual problem

When ‘tolerance’ proves to be nothing more than moral indifference and cowardice cloaked in self-righteousness, it is not a virtue but a vice.

Gates of Vienna: The Sin That Believes in Nothing

We Christians strongly believe in tolerance, and this is what British novelist Dorothy Sayers pointed out about “Tolerance”:

In this world it is called Tolerance, but in hell it is called indifference, the sin that believes in nothing, cares for nothing, seeks to know nothing, interferes with nothing, enjoys nothing, hates nothing, finds purpose in nothing, lives for nothing, and remains alive because there is nothing for which it will die.

If any viewpoint is equally as valid as any other, then no viewpoint has any meaning, and it matters not what any of us thinks, says, or does. This philosophy is truly satanic, and it is called nihilism.