• Changing RCF's index page, please click on "Forums" to access the forums.

The Trump Administration (just Trump) Thread

Do Not Sell My Personal Information
Status
Not open for further replies.
King Stannis said:
You support most of their policy positions from healthcare
Click to expand...

?
I've stated on here more than once that I favor universal healthcare in the US.
And since others are talking about it, I favor government involvement in nationwide internet access in a similar vein as other utilities such as water and electricity. Internet access is now too important to the populace to be exposed to free market fluctuations.
 
The Human Q-Tip said:
People remain "free to choose" whatever they want as long as they are able and willing to pay for it. For my part of "self-determination", I choose not to subsidize other peoples' hobbies.
Click to expand...

You will end up funding an uneducated populace if higher education isn't affordable to the middle class and lower class. You should be aware of what costs come from that problem: higher crime rates, food stamps, public housing... The costs for a population that can't function in society is enormous. And yes, I'm living proof that a liberal arts education doesn't necessarily mean unemployable. It means critical thinking skills can be applied to the workplace.

A Stanford study revealed those classes are critical to supplement for raising harder academic classes scores. That's another reason they exist. Do you want students who typically get B's and C's in high school to have access to finishing their college degrees? Studies show these classes help that happen.

Additionally, let's look at what the Republican tax reforms do subsidize: #1. The tax cuts to corporations who ship manufacturing overseas remains intact. So the 20 year olds who don't finish college still don't have many job options. #2. Increased tax breaks for religious affiliated corporations. So, they can still get talked into donating to televangelists like Joel Osteen to better their lives through the works of God.
 
Randolphkeys said:
You will end up funding an uneducated populace if higher education isn't affordable to the middle class and lower class. You should be aware of what costs come from that problem: higher crime rates, food stamps, public housing... The costs for a population that can't function in society is enormous. And yes, I'm living proof that a liberal arts education doesn't necessarily mean unemployable. It means critical thinking skills can be applied to the workplace.

A Stanford study revealed those classes are critical to supplement for raising harder academic classes scores. That's another reason they exist.
Click to expand...

College costs were very affordable until the government stepped in.

The easy availability of federally backed loans is what caused tuition to skyrocket. And with that colleges invested in many amenities tertiary to higher education. Lavish rec center with rock walls, lazy rivers, etc. All in an effort to attract those sweet sweet federally backed loans.

No one cares about higher education anymore. Just look at the massive reduction in tenured tracks and massive increase in administrative positions. It's become a bloated monstrosity that is a shadow of what it once was... Funded on the backs of the middle class, made possible by government intervention in the form of federally backed loans.

After seeing this disasterous outcome... The answer is more government intervention? Child please.
 
Randolphkeys said:
You will end up funding an uneducated populace if higher education isn't affordable to the middle class and lower class.
Click to expand...

But it's not unaffordable to the middle and lower class. If that were the case, there wouldn't be anyone in the middle or lower classes going to college, and there most certainly are.

And yes, I'm living proof that a liberal arts education doesn't necessarily mean unemployable. It means critical thinking skills can be applied to the workplace.
Click to expand...

You keep assuming that I am against liberal arts educations, and I am not. I'm completely freaking neutral on it, and many people can parlay that education into a good career. Good for them. My only criteria is that people should be generally responsible for the costs of their own education so that the incentives exist for them to enter into whatever major they believe will make them employable. And I don't want to hear the whining if it turns out that their chosen course of study is a dead-end career-wise. That should be their problem and responsibility, not mine. Just as your success belongs to you, and not to me.

It is also becoming more common for adults to go back to college, or at least take some college courses, and I think that's great. They've matured enough and have enough work experience to make better decisions about what they can afford, and what will benefit them.
 
FiveThous said:
Not just directed at you Gouri, but if you guys were to defend ending net neutrality, what would your arguments be?
Click to expand...

For my own selfish reasons, I think it will bring more completion to where I live. That's because we have always been pretty early on roll outs of wireless for new technology. 5g wireless is being built in part to target home internet, that isn't changing either way with net neutrality. The repeal of net neutrality creates a marketing strategy more than just price to these 5g wireless companies.

The problem is if you only have one or two internet providers and questionable 4g wireless, you will most likely end up pay more without any new choices. Cities and first ring suburbs are the ones who are going to benefit out the gate. The rural areas and outer ring suburbs are the ones who are going to pay for many years to come. Getting rid of net neutrality isn't going to change the fact that fiber and cable is expensive to lay. Same goes for cell towers, if there aren't enough customers in range to put up a tower they won't do it.

The major providers who are pushing this will ultimately lose out. They aren't smarter than the silicon valley companies. The providers are banking on the tech companies to pay fees and centralized servers. The problem is if the majority of content comes from these tech companies and they are putting out devices that are always on in our homes (Chromecast, Alexa, amazon fire tv, etc). Who is in control? The tech companies can decentralized their data by storing data on these devices and uploading it in a swarm. Internet providers are not providing much of a service if I don't get my Netflix, Hulu, ESPN, etc content.
 
The Trump/Ball feud is both the greatest and most awful thing ever. Two titans of towering NPD dueling before all the world.

An old Chinese proverb states “When two whales fight, millions of Levar Burtons get harassed on Twitter.”

 
Whittaker said:
?
I've stated on here more than once that I favor universal healthcare in the US.
And since others are talking about it, I favor government involvement in nationwide internet access in a similar vein as other utilities such as water and electricity. Internet access is now too important to the populace to be exposed to free market fluctuations.
Click to expand...

I couldn't say this better myself. I might make arguments for repealing net neutrality but in the end I don't support the repeal because of this. I know I will most likely benefit from the market effects and can ride it out with 3 internet providers already in my neighborhood. I don't think the majority of the country is in this position. 5g wireless for homes will only come to market where the population density make sense. The one providers who are in less populated areas now will most likely be the only provider for years to come.
 
inliner311 said:
I couldn't say this better myself. I might make arguments for repealing net neutrality but in the end I don't support the repeal because of this. I know I will most likely benefit from the market effects and can ride it out with 3 internet providers already in my neighborhood. I don't think the majority of the country is in this position. 5g wireless for homes will only come to market where the population density make sense. The one providers who are in less populated areas now will most likely be the only provider for years to come.
Click to expand...

The internet isn't like electrical, gas, and landline utility services, which are essentially fully mature industries whose distribution networks simply need to be maintained and occasionally upgraded over time. The inevitably slow, constraining effects of government regulation and oversight can move at their normal snails pace without doing too much damage because not a whole lot changes.

In contrast, the internet has been a rapidly growing, expanding, and improving phenomenon that has developed during a free market period when federal regulators lacked most of the legal power to regulate them. Yes, growth and development in the free market can be "chaotic" at times. But that free market also fosters lightning fast responses to consumer demands and preferences, rapid growth and improvement, and large scale investment. When someone starts to screw over consumers in one direction, alternatives eager to compete for those dollars spring up almost immediately. Competition for consumers is fierce, and when that happens, consumers are almost always going to be the biggest winners.

Once you cede to government regulators the power of control, that power will inevitably increase over time. It is the job of regulators to write regulations, and by damn, that's what they're going to do. And that will introduce into what was a vibrant, freewheeling tide of advancement a slowness, and fiated unpredicatibility, both of which are huge turnoffs to investors. The regulators will never be able to keep up with the pace of advancements and activities in the private sector, and so their regulatory function will be inherently skewed. That also opens the door to crony capitalism and favoritism, which doesn't happen when the government doesn't have the power to pick winners and losers.

You have to balance the certainly or steadiness you believe you are gaining with the likelihood that you are going to be suppressing innovation and necessary corrections/actions by competitive players in the market.
 
The Human Q-Tip said:
There already exists market-based incentives for people to go to college when it is in their economic interest to do so.



So rather than having people make their own decisions as to whether or not going to college and taking a particular course of study makes economic sense, you want to remove economic considerations entirely and just make it free for everyone....

Kind of the classic paternalism versus individualism dispute, isn't it? People are too dumb to make rational decisions regarding their own lives, so the government has to step in....

Under a market system, people have the opportunity to look into the basic economic facts about prospective careers/majors, and balance for themselves whether or not the cost is worth it. We give people the chance to make rational decisions about their own future.

To the extent people are irrational, you'd expect just as many to irrationally attend college as would irrationally not attend college. In either case, though, the burden of making an irrational decision will be born by the person who made it, not by taxpayers. I personally think that's how it should be.

In your "free college" situation, you are removing a huge part of the underlying economic calculus regarding the decision to attend college, and which career path to follow. So not only are you going to have the same number of irrational people making decisions, but you are in fact going to be steering economically rational people to make decisions that are economically irrational in a macro sense.

A person who might rationally decide that the combined costs of college and not being in the work force exceed the benefits of a degree, may decide that free college changes their individual calculus, and so decides to attend. From their perspective, that decision makes sense because they no longer have to pay for college. But from the perspective of the taxpayers picking up the tab, that decision doesn't make economic sense. Separating costs from benefits is a sure way to encourage distorted decision-making.
Click to expand...

Making college free, or cheaper, isn't "removing economic considerations entirely." That's a joke, especially if we're talking about students from poorer families who really, absolutely need to land a steady job with decent pay to stay afloat.

And you're oversimplifying what makes going to college a "rational" decision. The mean outcome may be positive if you're a student from a poor family going to college, but the risks are much greater than for a student from a middle class family (I can elaborate, but this should be obvious). A rational decision maker, as you know well, must consider the entire distribution of possible outcomes, not just the mean outcome. Therefore it's reasonable to believe that many students from poor families (wisely) choose not to go to college even though it would be, on average, the economically advantageous choice (on an individual level and on a macro level). By reducing or eliminating tuition for these students, you greatly lessen the associated risks and encourage them to make the economically favorable decision.
 
Nathan S said:
A rational decision maker, as you know well, must consider the entire distribution of possible outcomes, not just the mean outcome. Therefore it's reasonable to believe that many students from poor families (wisely) choose not to go to college even though it would be, on average, the economically advantageous choice (on an individual level and on a macro level).
Click to expand...

Why assume that the poor are more risk averse? They may be more willing to take risks because they have less to lose.

By reducing or eliminating tuition for these students, you greatly lessen the associated risks and encourage them to make the economically favorable decision.
Click to expand...

This is just rehashing the same argument. You think that people are more likely to make good decisions if we remove from them the true costs of the choice they're making. I disagree with that, and believe that people in general are more likely to make better choices the more they personally bear the costs and reap the benefits of their own choices.

I'd also add that I think having prospective students and parents focusing more on the economic wisdom of college will create better incentives for colleges to try to maximize educational value.
 
cavman said:
One thing I took away from that article is he is saying competition will fix all the issues we have with an unregulated internet. Competition I think is working in the wireless sector right now. But my home internet there is not much competition to be had. If we had more choices of who could provide our service so I could pick the company that has no caps so my family can watch all the amazon videos we already purchased for streaming when ever we want then I would be OK with it.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the issue is that the bulk of us only have one choice when it comes to an internet provider, so we are entirely at their mercy. For example, in my building right now, the only internet option is Time Warner / Spectrum. That's it. There are other providers in Charlotte (AT&T and, more recently, Google Fiber), but that doesn't matter to me as my building is only wired for one of them. You start letting Time Warner do whatever they want, and they're absolutely going to start fucking their customers over in any way they can. It's what companies like Time Warner do.

And I'd wager the vast majority of non-city dwellers will be hurt by removing net neutrality more than someone like me. I can move to another building and get Google Fiber, and intend to do that next year (waiting for them to expand their service a bit more...can only get it in a few areas right now). People living in smaller towns and cities likely only have one choice, and unless they uproot their lives and move to another city/town, they're only ever going to have that one choice.
 
gourimoko said:
You mean, what argument would I make if I were to play Devil's Advocate?
Click to expand...
Yes, I like how you reason things out. I guess a pros and cons list would be cool. Again, it was not directed strictly at you, so others can feel free to respond as well.

It's just an issue I don't know a lot about and I'm trying to learn more. I figured this could potentially hit you hard in the tech world, maybe I'm off?

edit: I just realized I don't even know if you're for or against it. My bad on making any judgments one way or the other.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Video

Episode 3-15: "Cavs Survive and Advance"

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Spotify

Episode 3:15: Cavs Survive and Advance
Top