Support NeoGAF

[maladroid]

Alpha dun goofed, Australia has always had dirt cheap education.

I was a bit bemused why Australia was singled out. It's not free like it was in the 70s, and my commerce subjects are more expensive than most, but considering my family's economic background, and where I ended up at uni, I'd say it was affordable (unless you're an international student). To have come from such a low socio-economic background and be given the opportunity to earn almost double my mother's annual income fresh out of uni is kind of amazing to me. A chance to improve their quality of life is one that everybody should get, ideally. This 'things are shit, but we're supposed to just take it' mentality strikes me as odd, but the reality over there is different to mine, so who am I to judge.

Uh, Australian education is by no means cheap, unless you're doing something like a Bachelor of English, and even then it's several thousands of dollars per year. I did my degree in Graphic Design and that was $15,000 a year.

Are we as bad as America? No, but we're hardly cheap either.

I'll end up owing the government about 20,000 at the end of my degree. They abolished full fee places when I entered uni, so only CSPs for local students. Interest free loan with no obligation to pay until I start earning a decent income (and even then, it'll be something like 3 grand that they'll deduct from my pay). Seems pretty decent to me (for my course. Don't know about others, and postgraduate study is a bit iffy).

ah, I see. thanks for clarification. That's affordable by just having a part time job while studying or generous parents.

The income threshold for when you have to start making repayments (by way of mandatory reductions from your income) is $47,196 (about 49,000 USD). Those with the money can choose to pay off their fees while studying and get a 20% discount.

 

[Jake.]

yeah, i am in australia and my degree is about $7000 a year (HECS obviously). i think the 'cheapest' degree at a university is about $4500 - TAFE courses are capped at $1600 which is a great idea.

 

[remnant]

"move to another state with cheaper tuition"

what kind of solution is that? seriously?

Again, the point is to have University education be affordable everywhere, for everyone. I'm not talking free, i'm talking affordable. It's all i've been saying. $600-800 tuition and remove the book cartels so that we can simply afford the books. I don't think anyone denies that the American book cartels are a good part of the unaffordability of our education, the control they have is disgusting.

A big reason why we are in this situation is because we are "making college affordable for everyone" by giving out loans like it's candy. Do you think the politicians run on making it more expensive?

You're offering all these other options that are by the way STILL more expensive than most world universities and far more of a hassle. I'm more than willing to put the effort in, but these solutions work for few people at a time, not systematically spread for the entire populace.

No they are not. Community colleges in America is dirt fucking cheap and if combined with a PELL grant and scholarship you can leave college with a moderately low amount of debt.

A big reason why college debt is so high is because rack it up. They go straight from HS to college, with no savings, no plan("lol i'm just floating around my freshman year. I'll figure out what i want to do later. ), they drop out for various reasons or pursue degrees with limited employment opportunity even during boom periods

I place such an emphasis on education because first, it is a right, every other civilized country has AFFORDABLE or FREE state University, Trade and every sort of educational institution.

First of all, don't lower the value of real rights by comparing this to those. Second, there are no such things as "free" schools. You still have to pay them. Third, if you want to lower the costs of school, you have to reform the system in a way in which you no longer inflate the price.

Not pour more money into the system so you can pay the inflated price. Oh lets forgive everyone college debt. I'm sure that will create no moral hazard. I'm sure no people will abuse that system.

It's really only in America, and seems to be only Americans who are disagreeing with me on this fundamental concept. And we are seeing how well unaffordable education has brought us into the future, a generation of monoglottal, unskilled labourers working minimum wage because even the thought of community college was far too expensive. It's tragic.

People like you are the reason it's unaffordable. You vote for more grants (many of which are never claimed by the way. Did you do the required amount of community service to get the extra 4k in grants a year that obama started?) and loans. You vote for more federal money to enter the system. You voted for politicians that ended the bankruptcy rules.

If student loans where treated like every other loan, the bubble would be much smaller, but no they have to be treated differently because they are student loans, so the government gives out more and more, and has no standards for who can take and who can't. They inflate the price of tution, but because people are so ignorant to what they are arguing for, i have to hear about how even more of what we currently do(give bad loans, forgive debt) is going to lead us into salvation

And even with that, individuals with educations will simply be better, happier people despite whether they are world class entrepeneurs or simply whatever they've chanced to be. Isn't this the type of society we want? isn't this the point of society? to create a common good among all?

Considering that a month ago half of London burnt down along with various other riots and protests that have been happening in Europe for what feels like year now, i really don't buy the claim Europeans live in a utopia.

I'm happy for those who trump so loudly how they've gone through this and that without debt, that's awesome, but clearly millions aren't so lucky, or fuck if you want, aren't so smart because clearly if we get debt in this system we're dipshits right? i wouldn't want to misinterpret. But again, simply, the point is that for everyone, everywhere, state University education should be affordable for everyone and not an organized racket that collaborates with cartels.

You create the racket, and then bitch about it. Awesome.

In the past 5 years we have seen laws that cut interest rates on stafford loan from 6 to 3%. Lowered qualifications for parent plus loans and the PELL grant being expanded from 5k to 8k. These are all going to inflate the cost of tution. Instead of letting natural market forces determine the cost, essentially the ability to pay, it's now a question of who can rack up the most debt.

I'm seeing it work right now as I type In Germany, and they absolutely love it and I don't think a single german i've met would ever want it any other way. Why don't Americans deserve the same?

How can I live in a country where the thought of affording healthcare, education and simply to live isn't on the collective consciousness, and then go back to America where we have clowns trying to tell me that this shit is just fantasy and those in America not successful, who don't have this or that, are dipshit idiots who deserve it?

I would love to live in a country with affordable all of that, but their always a group that wants a little more. Always a group that believes they can come in and perfectly design a marketplace, and hence the shit we have today. hence a country where health insurance is broken up into cartels, education is inflated and everyone deserves to own, not rent a home.

I will give Europeans this though. They have been able to completely shower over all their problems with taxpayer funds. It does make for very entertaining meltdowns and eventually it's going to happen here. Considering how people balked at the suggestion that they save some fucking money and try to act more prudently why bother. Eventually it will be largely nationalized and the only place you will hear about rising costs is in policy papers. Everyone else will now think it's free as if legislative pens are filled with fucking magic.

 

[Puddles]

Why aren't we instituting some cost controls in the university system? It's all well and good to say that if we increase grant and loan money, tuition will go up in response, but what if we just didn't let it go up?

 

[Naked Snake]

NOAM CHOMSKY at Occupy Boston

starts talking at about 3:00 minutes

edit: seems its cut up a bit, not the best ... heres the full speech http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KP_yDl7sPkI

I watched it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=olxp34z_Mns

I think this is the "official" one, better video and audio (maybe).

I enjoyed it greatly.

The greatest thing to come out of this whole shemozzle.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=luusm0mGkMg

I don't even like skating, but this was great.

 

[ezrarh]

You don't think "getting money out of politics" is a vague demand?

It's as clear as a demand as wanting universal healthcare. Like MuseManMike had said earlier, the matter of how to actually implement it isn't so clear and I don't expect the protesters to know the specifics on how to do it. At this point, the protest is to simply bring attention to overarching goals that many want which obviously wasn't in the mind of the current elected politicians before the protests had started. Writing up specific policy goals is meaningless if you don't have any congressmen or senator in line with that goal.

The most important thing here is that people are recognizing that the situation at hand is wrong and cannot continue unless we want the quality of life for a majority of the population to continue to decline. I haven't been to a protest but you can't expect most people protesting to know the specifics on how to solve all these problems.

 

[Deku]

remnant nails it completely.

free loans/free schools issue is a non starter, it's only emphasizes how small minded the OWS can be or could potentially become if that's one of the rallying cries.

That's not to say government has no place and they already are in the conversation. They should be providing baseline of support and investing massive amounts into university overhead, creating the proper university environment to attract top intellectuals and make them want to work there.

The marginal cost of running a program should be shouldered in part by private money (ie: tuitions)

 

[empty vessel]

A big reason why we are in this situation is because we are "making college affordable for everyone" by giving out loans like it's candy. Do you think the politicians run on making it more expensive?

That's not why. Providing access to credit is not the same thing as making college affordable. They are two separate things, and shouldn't be confused.

No they are not. Community colleges in America is dirt fucking cheap and if combined with a PELL grant and scholarship you can leave college with a moderately low amount of debt.

I don't understand why you are suggesting that leaving college with any debt is a good thing. Moreover, forcing people who are qualified for four-year universities to be diverted to community college instead simply because university is unaffordable does not benefit society.

A big reason why college debt is so high is because rack it up. They go straight from HS to college, with no savings, no plan("lol i'm just floating around my freshman year. I'll figure out what i want to do later. ), they drop out for various reasons or pursue degrees with limited employment opportunity even during boom periods

That is not a big reason why college debt in the US is so bad. This is also how most Europeans who qualify attend university. Yet, they do not come out of it loaded with debt. The reason why debt in the US is so bad is because that is how we have structured access to higher education. It's a choice we--or, rather, politically powerful elements of our society--made, and a stupid one at that, at least from the perspective of broader social well-being.

First of all, don't lower the value of real rights by comparing this to those. Second, there are no such things as "free" schools. You still have to pay them. Third, if you want to lower the costs of school, you have to reform the system in a way in which you no longer inflate the price.

Not pour more money into the system so you can pay the inflated price. Oh lets forgive everyone college debt. I'm sure that will create no moral hazard. I'm sure no people will abuse that system.

I'm sorry, I missed the scientific journal article that identified education as not being among "real" rights. Nobody believes that education is literally "free." The issue is how we provide access to it and whether it makes sense. Ours clearly doesn't, and no sensible person would defend it. When people talk about making higher education "free," they mean that there is a social mechanism in place to provide it to those who qualify without burdening those people individually or even outright denying it to them by making it individually unaffordable. Other countries do this, and it works. Their graduates do not emerge from their universities behind the economic eight ball as ours do. The imposition of this debt has consequences for the broader society, needlessly makes life more difficult, and dissuades qualified people from obtaining skills and education useful to society.

People like you are the reason it's unaffordable. You vote for more grants (many of which are never claimed by the way. Did you do the required amount of community service to get the extra 4k in grants a year that obama started?) and loans. You vote for more federal money to enter the system. You voted for politicians that ended the bankruptcy rules.

If student loans where treated like every other loan, the bubble would be much smaller, but no they have to be treated differently because they are student loans, so the government gives out more and more, and has no standards for who can take and who can't. They inflate the price of tution, but because people are so ignorant to what they are arguing for, i have to hear about how even more of what we currently do(give bad loans, forgive debt) is going to lead us into salvation

The reason student loans are not treated like every other loan is because, if they were, nobody could attend university. Do you realize what the interest rates on non-guaranteed private loans would be? The reality--as one of your ilk has already pointed out before--is that higher education is a public good for which markets are inadequate to distribute in accordance with our society's needs. There must be subsidization, and so the only relevant question is how the public pays, not whether the public pays. The system of individual loans is probably the worst way to organize the distribution of this public good to society.

Considering that a month ago half of London burnt down along with various other riots and protests that have been happening in Europe for what feels like year now, i really don't buy the claim Europeans live in a utopia.

I would love to live in a country with affordable all of that, but their always a group that wants a little more. Always a group that believes they can come in and perfectly design a marketplace, and hence the shit we have today. hence a country where health insurance is broken up into cartels, education is inflated and everyone deserves to own, not rent a home.

Ridiculous anti-American nonsense. Americans are not uniquely incapable of planning how best to allocate and distribute fundamentally public goods. And it's ironic that you attribute "the shit we have today" to a scenario that has never existed in the US--people "coming in and perfectly designing a marketplace" instead of what we do have--virtual laissez faire capitalism or outright corporate dictation of government policy. What we want is the opposite: popular dictation of government policy that exercises control over corporate and financial institutions.

I will give Europeans this though. They have been able to completely shower over all their problems with taxpayer funds. It does make for very entertaining meltdowns and eventually it's going to happen here. Considering how people balked at the suggestion that they save some fucking money and try to act more prudently why bother. Eventually it will be largely nationalized and the only place you will hear about rising costs is in policy papers. Everyone else will now think it's free as if legislative pens are filled with fucking magic.

Jesus, it's like your connection to the empirical world has been completely severed. Are you now suggesting that the European credit crisis is due to how they allocate university education among their public?

 

[Evlar]

The marginal cost of running a program should be shouldered in part by private money (ie: tuitions)

Why should it?

 

[Deku]

Why should it?

From an economic perspective user pay has advantages, for one, it prices things properly and offers signals for supply and demand. You don't want to be overfunding a program while underfunding another due to artificial caps to tuition or flat transfer payments.

There are also innovative co-op programs where students get some resume filler and real work experience switching out a semester or two working in the relevant field in a real work place and getting money for it.

I'm not against alleviating the student's burden ; but ideas like 'free tuition' and 'loan forgiveness' is not the solution. It only helps the diploma mills inflate tuitions further because they know they have another crop of debt free suckers to fleece from.

Most of the government Money should go to universities to cover overhead and for research.

 

[empty vessel]

From an economic perspective user pay has advantages, for one, it prices things properly and offers signals for supply and demand. You don't want to be overfunding a program while underfunding another due to artificial caps to tuition of flat transfer payments.

Didn't you already concede earlier in this thread that there is no market for financing of public education because those loans are so risky? Or was that somebody else?

I'm not against alleviating the student's burden ; but ideas like 'free' and 'loan forgiveness' is not the solution. It only helps the diploma mills inflate tuitions further because they know they have another crop of debt free suckers to fleece from.

The point of government oversight is to prevent that. And it easily can, provided that the people--and not corporate or financial interests--control the levers of democratic power.

 

[venne]

Really need to work on inequality in this country.

Here's a TED Talk on the subject for anyone with 15 minutes:

http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson.html

 

[Deku]

Didn't you already concede earlier in this thread that there is no market for financing of public education because those loans are so risky? Or was that somebody else?

Concede is a bit of a misrepresentation. You were going on about the conspiracy by banks to enslave students with debt, I pointed out banks have no such plans and you're fantasizing and that Due to the high risk of students as a debtor, governments usually have to step in as a gurantor of those loans to make them happen.

The discussion on whether students should pay something at all is somewhat of an aside from whether government should provide loans for said tuition. This current discussin assumes that we have agreed on some baseline that yes, there will be support in terms of government loans and grants. Totally non controversial

The point of government oversight is to prevent that. And it easily can, provided that the people--and not corporate or financial interests--control the levers of democratic power.

Sure, and they will invent new ways to charge students. Also, that doesn't address the fact that flat dollar per head of student subsidy is not a great way to price education. You tend to not fund programs properly. Pricingly it properly and have students be on the hook for the marginal cost of that service is a better idea.

 

[Alpha-Bromega]

for the record, i've never once said tuition should be free. but it should be affordable, that's it. Get rid of the book cartels and we have a decent education system. This is exactly how Germany has it, they pay roughly $800 tuition and not a dime for books because their Library stocks them. We pay here at NAU (one of the cheaper state universities) $8,000 and another $400 on books because the Universities collude with cartels to make textbooks laughably expensive (especially when these cartels do sell international versions at market price internationally rather than cartel price)


loan forgiveness shouldn't even exist because taking out such an amount for a University education should not necessitate you taking out such an amount that it needs 'forgiven'

but the concept of now, it can NEVER be forgiven, the rates are ridiculous, and the very fact that it's necessary to attend our vastly overpriced Uni's is the issue. I don't see how we can perpetuate ourselves as an educated or socially wealthy society when education is restricted in this way. Our system is clearly reserved for the aristocracy, plain and simple.


Deku i just completely disagree that the burden on students should be so high, ever, it's a social good no matter what. There should be impetus on students to take responsibility when they decide to attend, hence the fact it not being free, but having to pay such exorbanent fees for simply attending Uni is just not right, it's really moral in my eyes when it comes down to it.

 

[Tideas]

for the record, i've never once said tuition should be free. but it should be affordable, that's it. Get rid of the book cartels and we have a decent education system. This is exactly how Germany has it, they pay roughly $800 tuition and not a dime for books because their Library stocks them. We pay here at NAU (one of the cheaper state universities) $8,000 and another $400 on books because the Universities collude with cartels to make textbooks laughably expensive (especially when these cartels do sell international versions at market price internationally rather than cartel price)


loan forgiveness shouldn't even exist because taking out such an amount for a University education should not necessitate you taking out such an amount that it needs 'forgiven'

but the concept of now, it can NEVER be forgiven, the rates are ridiculous, and the very fact that it's necessary to attend our vastly overpriced Uni's is the issue.


Deku i just completely disagree that the burden on students should be so high, ever, it's a social good no matter what. There should be impetus on students to take responsibility when they decide to attend, hence the fact it not being free, but having to pay such exorbanent fees for simply attending Uni is just not right, it's really moral in my eyes when it comes down to it.

Germany also charges 40-50% income tax....

 

[Deku]

you won't find any opposition from me about the book cartels. They contribute nothing aside from consuming lots of glossy prints, and there should be generics equivalent to those texts. ie: universities are allowed to compile their own text books as needed or have a specialist insitution do it for smaller schools.

As for tuition, not free is vague. can be $1 or $10,000 per semester. There's a lot of room to disagree

I think 3-4k per semester is reasonable for undergrad with some costing less others more from that range. completely arbitrary and vague valuation of course.

 

[Alpha-Bromega]

Germany also charges 40-50% income tax....

False. Notice how it only gets really high when the earnings are like, really high?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Income_Tax_Germany_2010.png

You think $3-4 is reasonable? how? You're talking about Americans right? You know we're on the whole kind of poor nowadays, man.

how are we going to get educated when tuition for one semester costs 3 months wages? take loans from entities who are clearly profiteering off of us, contribute to another bust?

 

[empty vessel]

Concede is a bit of a misrepresentation. You were going on about the conspiracy by banks to enslave students with debt, I pointed out banks have no such plans and you're fantasizing and that Due to the high risk of students as a debtor, governments usually have to step in as a gurantor of those loans to make them happen.

Are you seriously calling the desire of the financial industry to make enormous profits by acting as risk-free middlemen in the student loan business a "conspiracy"? This is why dyed-in-the-wool capitalists cannot be taken seriously anymore. You refer to the basic mechanisms of the economic system you advocate as "conspiracies." It is really bizarre.

Sure, and they will invent new ways to charge students. Also, that doesn't address the fact that flat dollar per head of student subsidy is not a great way to price education. You tend to not fund programs properly. Pricingly it properly and have students be on the hook for the marginal cost of that service is a better idea.

Who will invent new ways to charge students? All regulation requires is proper enforcement, which isn't possible when financial and other business interests control the government but is possible when the people control it.

I don't understand your fixation on "proper pricing" when you've already conceded the need for subsidy. You've already distorted the pricing. How is "pricing" higher education any different from "pricing" public education K-12? The objective is to set aside a certain amount of public resources to provide higher education (a public good) to the public, and then allocate those resources. The only difference between higher education and K-12 is that there has to be a selection mechanism for who gets public access whereas we try to ensure that everybody has access to K-12. As society grows wealthier, we may even someday be able to guarantee access to higher education to everybody. That would obviously be a long term social goal.

 

[SouthernDragon]

Even if it were 50%...

So? The standard of living is ridiculously high over there. I was in contact with students and working folk all over Europe, and none of them had a problem with taxation, since they knew it was being put to work for their benefit. It also encouraged civic participation, since it made sure that every citizen had skin in the game.

 

[SpectreFire]

Guys, have you noticed how 1% of the population hold 100% of the magic in the world? The other 99% have absolutely 0% in terms of magic in their blood.

I for one find that ridiculous and absurd. What gives them the right to hog all the magic in the world? I am the 99% and I say we need a revolution to close the gap between the magical and non-magical.

I say we Occupy Hogwarts!

Who's with me!

 

[Alpha-Bromega]

I actually brought up taxation a few times today with this topic in mind, and the general consensus; "Look at what we get in return!"

 

[dave is ok]

It'd be one thing if working class Americans were paid much more and taxed much less than other countries workers to make up for the fact that we have no healthcare whatsoever, but that isn't really the case.

 

[cooljeanius]

Guys, have you noticed how 1% of the population hold 100% of the magic in the world? The other 99% have absolutely 0% in terms of magic in their blood.

I for one find that ridiculous and absurd. What gives them the right to hog all the magic in the world? I am the 99% and I say we need a revolution to close the gap between the magical and non-magical.

I say we Occupy Hogwarts!

Who's with me!

You have my sword.

 

[SpectreFire]

You have my sword.

Thanks.

I'm honestly sick and tired of having to tell my loved ones that I can't treat their ailments because I just simply don't have the magical blood to produce potions and spells.

Why are only the 1% allowed to cure cancer, why aren't the other 99% allowed to take part in that life-saving miracle?

It doesn't help that the government even knows about this problem, and do absolutely nothing about it. They're merely puppets of the magical community. They even have a wizard on the Prime Minister of Britain's staff in order to keep an eye on him and ensure that he stays in line.

These people are controlling our lives. Why are they allowed to get away with it?!

 

[Deku]

Are you seriously calling the desire of the financial industry to make enormous profits by acting as risk-free middlemen in the student loan business a "conspiracy"? This is why dyed-in-the-wool capitalists cannot be taken seriously anymore. You refer to the basic mechanisms of the economic system you advocate as "conspiracies." It is really bizarre.

Wasn't that already repealed? Maybe it was a bad law or a giveaway at some point, but that doesn't really address the conspiracy theory that banks lend to enslave students.

Note that even in your example, it requires federal dollars for the conspiracy to work. I think if you tell someone you're a nigerian prince and they should lend someone for guaranteed profit, they will do it too.

Who will invent new ways to charge students? All regulation requires is proper enforcement, which isn't possible when financial and other business interests control the government but is possible when the people control it.

The diploma mills, 'acamedies' of stuff. etc.

I don't understand your fixation on "proper pricing" when you've already conceded the need for subsidy. You've already distorted the pricing. How is "pricing" higher education any different from "pricing" public education K-12? The objective is to set aside a certain amount of public resources to provide higher education (a public good) to the public, and then allocate those resources. The only difference between higher education and K-12 is that there has to be a selection mechanism for who gets public access whereas we try to ensure that everybody has access to K-12. As society grows wealthier, we may even someday be able to guarantee access to higher education to everybody. That would obviously be a long term social goal.

K-12 is standardized education. Post-secondary is not. Some degrees will cost more just because the talent required to teach it may be rare, more expensive, difficult to retain, the lab time may cost more money, resources to staff a faculty different, etc. etc.

Pricing is the best mechanism we have to properly allocate resources. And you shouldn't be against that.

 

[Enron]

Occupy Atlanta is about to get steamrolled

http://www.ajc.com/news/atlanta/breaking-atlanta-mayor-to-1209058.html

By Jeremiah McWilliams and Alexis Stevens
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

6:20 p.m. Monday, October 24, 2011
A mayor who said he's been more than reasonable and protesters who say they're undeterred by a heightened police presence faced off at City Hall today. About an hour later, police started facing off with "Occupy Atlanta" in Woodruff Park.

At a tense press conference that started at about 4:45, Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed said some people associated with Occupy Atlanta are on "a clear path to escalation" after an unauthorized hip-hop concert over the weekend and an incident in which a member of his staff was shouted down during a television interview.

Reed said he will revoke the executive order allowing Occupy Atlanta protesters to stay in Woodruff Park until Nov. 7. He did not say when that would occur, but said it would be at the time of his choosing and the city's fire and police departments would be ready to clear the downtown park at his command.

There was a heavy police presence at the park throughout the day Monday. A SWAT team stood by. At one point, a police helicopter swooped overhead.

At about 5:30 Monday afternoon, large trucks carrying 3-foot metal fencing arrived at the park, followed by nearly a dozen police recruits in white T-shirts and blue pants. The group quickly went to work placing barricades around the park as protesters shouted and tried to ask questions.

Other Atlanta Police Department officers stood guard, keeping onlookers back so the fencing could be set up. Police spokesman Carlos Campos said access to the park had not been restricted.

"The park is still open," he said. "No exits or entrances are blocked at this time."

At the press conference, Reed said he planned to give a group of clergy -- some of whom joined him at the press conference at City Hall -- time to meet with the protesters and work out a solution.

If that doesn't happen, "we are going to clear the park," he said.

At various points in the press conference, Occupy Atlanta protesters interrupted Reed and accused him of spin and of exaggerating the threat to citizens. Reed did not take the bait.

"This is my press conference," he said. "We are in a place where we cannot have a productive dialogue."

Reed said the turning point occurred over the weekend, when, he said, protesters tried to organize a two-day hip-hip concert without proper security plan or personnel. Reed said the concert, which attracted about 600 people, had been wrongly advertised as featuring rapper Ludacris. That was dangerous, he said.

"I spoke with Ludacris," Reed said. "He was never going to the park."

Protesters also used an unauthorized generator and put people on top of it to prevent police from removing it, Reed said. The city would have been liable if the machine had combusted, he said.

"I believe they placed lives at risk this weekend," he said. "The nature of the relationship has changed."

Reed acknowledged that there were no incidents of violence during the concert when Ludacris didn't show up. But he said that was because of an expanded police presence that cost the city roughly $100,000 on Saturday alone. Police have worked 12-hour shifts near the park since the weekend.

After the press conference broke up, protesters said the heightened police presence was a bigger threat than any of the protesters.

"This will not deter us," said Ladie Mansfield, one of the Occupy Atlanta protesters who attended the press conference. "More than likely, it will unite us."

Photographer Curtis Compton contributed to this report.

Hahahahaha. So they tried to draw people to the park by claiming Ludacris was going to perform?

 

[cooljeanius]

Apparently Occupy Maine got attacked with a chemical bomb: http://www.pressherald.com/news/Chemical-bomb-tossed-into-Occupy-Maine-encampment.html

 

[Jenga]

Apparently Occupy Maine got attacked with a chemical bomb: http://www.pressherald.com/news/Chemical-bomb-tossed-into-Occupy-Maine-encampment.html

there's an occupy maine?

i thought maine was just like "that backwater state where stephen king is from"

 

[jamesinclair]

I find it hilarious that this thread is kept alive by people constantly trying to discredit the movement.

It borders on obsession among some posters.

 

[Karma Kramer]

I find it hilarious that this thread is kept alive by people constantly trying to discredit the movement.

It borders on obsession among some posters.

Gotta fight for freedom and America! Down with Marxist and Communists!

 

[cooljeanius]

there's an occupy maine?

i thought maine was just like "that backwater state where stephen king is from"

Yeah, Portland is a city. I think A Human Becoming went to it, ask him about it.

 

[Myansie]

Pricing is the best mechanism we have to properly allocate resources. And you shouldn't be against that.

To get into university you need good marks. They don't just let you in. If you add a pricing mechanism to the entrance criteria you cut out some of your best students.

There are things the Government is much better at than private enterprise and the free market. Education is one of them.

 

[A Human Becoming]

Yeah, Portland is a city. I think A Human Becoming went to it, ask him about it.

I only went to the original rally. My focus has moved over to Occupy New Hampshire, as it is my home state.

I mentioned over a week ago I would be occupying. It started on the 15th and lasted until the city police department evicted us from the park on the 19th. I was there for at least half the occupation, including sleeping in the park three nights. I don't know what direction Occupy NH is heading next. A committee is supposed to be looking for a private park to occupy, but nothing has come from it yet.

I made a Youtube channel for our group and a playlist documenting the occupation up until eviction in a semi-chronological order. I've been discombobulated since I came home Friday. I think a part of me is still back at the park. I would say it was a life changing experience, but not necessarily a massive one. I meant to blog about my experience while occupying but with an unreliable internet source and odd jobs readily available I never got around to it. Now that I've had some time to reflect I might write something up.

 

[nateeasy]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ANT89jak_w

Eric Bischoff Tweeted this. Some guy at #OccupyDayton ranting about how he hates the military, police, your flag and the government.

 

[Lime]

In Denmark, not only is most education free (from pre-school to getting a master's degree), we also get PAID to study when we reach 18 years of age.

Makes studying and focusing on newer research a much higher priority than constantly working your ass off and thereby neglect your studies. Plus it allows those with lesser means to get more equal footing.

 

[Doctor_20]

I can't even imagine how shitty public education would be if it were free. It wouldn't even be worth your time.

 

[ReBurn]

I can't even imagine how shitty public education would be if it were free. It wouldn't even be worth your time.

Taxpayer-funded isn't free.

 

[Enron]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ANT89jak_w

Eric Bischoff Tweeted this. Some guy at #OccupyDayton ranting about how he hates the military, police, your flag and the government.

 

[Zhengi]

In Denmark, not only is most education free (from pre-school to getting a master's degree), we also get PAID to study when we reach 18 years of age.

Makes studying and focusing on newer research a much higher priority than constantly working your ass off and thereby neglect your studies. Plus it allows those with lesser means to get more equal footing.

You can't say your education is free if you pay taxes, and higher taxes than in the US, for it.

 

[empty vessel]

In Denmark, not only is most education free (from pre-school to getting a master's degree), we also get PAID to study when we reach 18 years of age.

Makes studying and focusing on newer research a much higher priority than constantly working your ass off and thereby neglect your studies. Plus it allows those with lesser means to get more equal footing.

It makes sense, too, from a social standpoint. Higher education benefits society and is in fact work. There is no reason why it shouldn't be paid.

You can't say your education is free if you pay taxes, and higher taxes than in the US, for it.

It's obviously not free in that sense. It is all a matter of how paying for it is arranged. Lime will obviously be paying taxes after he* graduates. You can conceive of that either as his paying for his own degree or paying for somebody else's in the future. Either way, Lime's life is easier because he was able to concentrate on his education while he was there, and because when he emerges from it he will not be starting his life in debt.

* I'm assuming you're a guy. If not, apologies.

 

[Zhengi]

It's obviously not free in that sense. It is all a matter of how paying for it is arranged. Lime will obviously be paying taxes after he* graduates. You can conceive of that either as his paying for his own degree or paying for somebody else's in the future. Either way, Lime's life is easier because he was able to concentrate on his education while he was there, and because when he emerges from it he will not be starting his life in debt.

* I'm assuming you're a guy. If not, apologies.

I understand what his point was and I agree it is easier for people in Denmark to get an education, but however, the way they are stating their point is as if the education was entirely free and he had nothing to pay. This is not true and I'm pointing out that the education will be paid through higher taxes by him and others after they receive their education.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

I can't even imagine how shitty public education would be if it were free. It wouldn't even be worth your time.

then go to private college...

at least have the option for a public education for those who cannot afford any school at all.

 

[Deku]

To get into university you need good marks. They don't just let you in. If you add a pricing mechanism to the entrance criteria you cut out some of your best students.

There are things the Government is much better at than private enterprise and the free market. Education is one of them.

Post secondary isn't just university. You'll still need pricing regardless how few or how many you let in.

And the reason you have to price is, is an implicit understanding some programs will be more expensive to run, others will be more popular and you need to be able to adequately fund those programs appropriately, even if your operating 100% not for profit, you still need to allocate resources in this way.

But the idea that post-secondary education should be free is just a non starter. As I noted, it's going to be off putting to a whole host of people who will see it as a narrow issue of a small group of people.

 

[Fusebox]

I can't even imagine how shitty public education would be if it were free. It wouldn't even be worth your time.

That must explain why America is topping the world in math and science even though most other developed countries offer a free public education option.

OH WAIT, YOU AREN'T...


http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-...th-on-math-test-trail-in-science-reading.html

Fifteen-year-olds in the U.S. ranked 25th among peers from 34 countries on a math test and scored in the middle in science and reading, while China’s Shanghai topped the charts

You're being destroyed by waves of migrant workers children getting free education in Shanghai.

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2010-02/24/content_9498516.htm

Still proud of paying for your public education?

 

[Lime]

You can't say your education is free if you pay taxes, and higher taxes than in the US, for it.

Sure, I pay about 40 % of my wages as taxes (including the government support), but I'm in the lowest bracket because of my level of income (being a student, only working part-time). The highest bracket, which includes people earning a lot of money, is from 60 to 75 percent (my father is one of those and I will hopefully as well).

Sidenote regarding this OWS: The entire motivation for why it is prudent to achieve an equalized social footing stems from the concept called social heritage, which is commonly used in Scandinavia. But this concept seems completely non-existing to the people I've talked to who argue that
"Every man is the architect of his own fortune". This is especially apparent in the discourse in American media about this whole thing. Maybe it's because the notion of social heritage clashes with the American dream.

 

[Myansie]

And the reason you have to price is, is an implicit understanding some programs will be more expensive to run, others will be more popular and you need to be able to adequately fund those programs appropriately, even if your operating 100% not for profit, you still need to allocate resources in this way.

Can you explain what you mean by pricing better? Medicine is one of the most, if not the most, expensive courses you can study. From what I understand from your argument is that med students should be paying for it.

Why? Doctors benefit everyone. I am quite prepared to have my taxes go towards training more doctors. In the long term doctors make good money, so they pay back their education at least a hundred times over in taxes. It seems like a pointless exercise to put them in debt to a financial institution. Why put the financial institution as the middle guy lending out money at a 7% interest rate? Why let them make money from it? They haven't done shit, no value's been added. It's far more efficient to have a high standard of academic grading to enter the course and then pay for it with government money.

 

[Bluth]

That must explain why America is topping the world in math and science even though most other developed countries offer a free public education option.

OH WAIT, YOU AREN'T...


http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-...th-on-math-test-trail-in-science-reading.html



You're being destroyed by waves of migrant workers children getting free education in Shanghai.

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2010-02/24/content_9498516.htm

Still proud of paying for your public education?

I don't know if that's a good comparison to make because wouldn't 15 year olds still be in the public school system the US has?

 

[Zhengi]

Sure, I pay about 40 % of my wages as taxes (including the government support), but I'm in the lowest bracket because of my level of income (being a student, only working part-time). The highest bracket, which includes people earning a lot of money, is from 60 to 75 percent (my father is one of those and I will hopefully as well).

Sidenote regarding this OWS: The entire motivation for why it is prudent to achieve an equalized social footing stems from the concept called social heritage, which is commonly used in Scandinavia. But this concept seems completely non-existing to the people I've talked to who argue that
"Every man is the architect of his own fortune". This is especially apparent in the discourse in American media about this whole thing. Maybe it's because the notion of social heritage clashes with the American dream.

Well, there's the biggest difference.

Right now I'm in the 25% tax bracket range for federal income tax and the next bracket is 28%. The highest is 35%, and I am aiming for that tax bracket as well, but we'll see if I ever reach it.

So it kind of evens out with the way you pay more taxes as your earning power goes up. The good thing is that there are ways to get a free education in the US if people are smart about it. I paid almost nothing for my undergraduate degree and now I have a pretty good job with the only debt I have as my mortgage. I think I'm in a pretty good position earning money at my current tax bracket and I am looking to go back to school to get a masters degree to get a higher income.

I don't believe I would be making as much money if I were in Denmark under that type of system.

 

[Deku]

Can you explain what you mean by pricing better? Medicine is one of the most, if not the most, expensive courses you can study. From what I understand from your argument is that med students should be paying for it.

Why? Doctors benefit everyone. I am quite prepared to have my taxes go towards training more doctors. In the long term doctors make good money, so they pay back their education at least a hundred times over in taxes. It seems like a pointless exercise to put them in debt to a financial institution. Why put the financial institution as the middle guy lending out money at a 7% interest rate? Why let them make money from it? They haven't done shit, no value's been added. It's far more efficient to have a high standard of academic grading to enter the course and then pay for it with government money.

I don't know why you want to drag medicine into this. I explained my position quite clearly.

Marginal cost of running a program (prof salaries, faculty/staff costs, program fees etc) should be paid for by students in full or in part.

This assumes the underlying infrastructure, the building, overhead, the academic environment is already paid for (with state funding) and that the state itself will be ready to loan students money for the tuition they need to pay.

The point is, education should cost something and the cost of that education should have some grounding in reality of how much it costs to run the program they are in.

 

[Myansie]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't students loan the money in America from a bank with an interest rate attached? That, I believe, is a flat out bad idea. Deku it sounds like you're against that as well?

Running a cost based system in education is really going to bias study to particular faculties. Things like astronomy are going to cost way too much. Marine biology, Forestry conservation. There are so many that are important, expensive and aren't going to generate large sums of cash and by your system will be denied funding. That's why I feel the government is important to education, they're more likely to spend money on faculties that will gain them votes and hopefully long term benefits.