College costs are out of control. 70% of staff is not involved with teaching. Sports facilities are not justified. Ten year'ed teachers are WAKO overhead. Tax payers should demand to control balance sheets of colleges !!!!!! This a runaway train and the new generation will be the victim of this Bubble of greed
I'm a home owner in OH. Home prices were fraudulently inflated, to get higher taxes for the schools, teachers pensions, teacher unions, entitlement programs, etc., etc.. When I went to school, we had 30 to 36 students in a class. Now the class sizes are 14-18, twice as many teachers have been hired resulting in larger teacher unions, 2 annual salary increases, & a lower education standards for our children. I'm voting ALL tax levies down until the waste is curbed,& fiscal sanity is restored!
I know the Libertarian party is great. Who in the world could read about the party platform and it's principle and not agree? So then why is it so unpopular? I hear people complain about things all the time but they always go crazy at the last second and vote Democrat or Republican. Are we the only people left on Earth who can actually think for ourselves?
Law ad order is provided privately by Somalian customary law. The diya defines the laws regarding such acts as murder and theft. Some secular courts exist but sharia courts are more instrumental in ensuring the legal order. Other private courts are supported with the donations of successful businessmen who find it beneficial to fund the pressence of courts in urban areas. Dispute resolution is free and speedy by international standards (Nenova 2004 and Harfod 2004).
Since anarchy took place life expectancy, child immunization, number of physicians, access to sanitation, access to health facilities, (non government) GDP, # of people with radios, tv, telephones, has all increased, Infant with low birth weight, infant mortality rate, materanal mortality rate, extreme poverty (less than 1$ a day), and fatalitie due to measles has all decreased as a result of the government collapsing.
Also, Somalians have substantially more civil liberties post-1991.
By subsidizing colleges, you steal from everyone else. Let the people who are using the college pay for the college. Let everyone else keep what they worked for without getting robbed by the government.
I suppose you think that subsidizing K-12 schools is also stealing from everyone else? Taking that to its logical conclusion, that would make subsidizing roads, streets, bridges, harbors, airports, police, firefighters, the military, our space program, prisons, etc, stealing from everyone else. Yeah, let the people who need the cops or fire department pay for them- if you don't have the money to pay them, they let your house burn down or get robbed. Right?
Can schools be paid for without taxes? Yes. Then they should. The constitution gives the federal government no authority to be involved in education at all. Why is the government in education at all, other than to indoctrinate and dumb down our children. Private schools are so much better, it is criminal to force children into government schools.
And private schools don't indoctrinate? Also, if we privatize education, there's gonna be many kids whose parents can't afford tuition. What happens to them? It's a safe bet we'll end up dealing with them in the criminal justice system. Courtrooms and jail /prison cells cost way more than classrooms and textbooks.
Private schools offer scholarships. And they are so much better that grateful alumni offer donations. Plus, parents would have so much more money without all that the government robs from them to pay for their overpriced, undeperforming system. Private schools educate better, and for a lower cost. There is no reason to keep government schools other than greedy teacher unions.
Furthermore, private schools can refuse to admit anyone they wish, including but not limited to kids who parents aren't of the "right" religion or aren't active members of the "right" church, or whose parents are single or divorced, or whose parents are a gay/lesbian couple, or who are living w/ their grandparents or an aunt/uncle, or who don't live in the "right" kind of neighborhood, or who are learning disabled- most private schools aren't equipped or staffed to deal w/ handicapped kids.
For all the problems that public schools have, that's the good thing about them- everyone, regardless of religion, family, handicap, etc, has an opportunity to have an education.
There is nothing good about stealing from people to fund government schools and refusing to hold their incompetent employees accountable. Just another wasteful, coercive boondoggle.
There would be a private school for every conceivable segment of the population if the government didn't steal from everyone the means by which they could afford to either attend a school, sponsor a child, or operate their own school. The possibilities are there if the greedy government would just get out of our way.
And how long would that take? What happens to those kids in the time it takes to set up those schools? Also if we got rid of public schools, there's gonna be those parents who just plain refuse to pay for their kids to go to school. Nor will there ever be enough scholarships to go around to everyone who needs one, and many of those scholarships won't cover the entire tuition or expenses. "Sorry Kate, we couldn't get you a scholarship. Now take your place along your little brother in the mines".
Privatizing services that the government had held in a coercive death grip is a worthy goal, even if it takes time. (and of course, the political process will make the pace of change gradual). Private schools offer better education at lower costs. Tax vouchers would offer a transition away from government control of education.
And don't whine about taking money away from the govt schools. The greedy govt took the money away from the people it truely belongs to in the first place.
Pbirv, why do you always turn everything into a catastrophe? Your lack of problem solving skills are frightening. Police and fire can be funded without taxes. A volunteer department can be funded by donations and fundraisers. Or a fee-for-service system would encourage responsibility. If a house is on fire, firemen put out the fire and send you a bill, just like when you visit a health clinic. See how easy that is. Why is everything a catastrophe with you? Did mommy not tuck you in at night?
And what about those who can't afford to pay the police or fire bill? Yeah, I suppose the firemen would tell those people to "get out the marshmallows" if their house is on fire. I suppose you think that those who can't afford to pay the police bill can always get a lynch mob going after someone who breaks into their home or assaults and/or robs them or their loved ones. Yeah, I guess the "Mad Max" movies really had things down right. Right?
I suppose you think the military could also be funded without taxes? Yeah, I could see the Air Force holding a bake sale to buy a new bomber and the Navy selling raffle tickets to buy a new attack sub or aircraft carrier.
Military: national defense is one of the few activities of the federal government that is actually authorized by the constitution. (There is no such authority to be involved in education or health care.) For this reason, taxes for defense may be acceptable.
some ideas: reduce the role and size of the federal military. Allow state militias and private militias to train their units and contract their services, rather than large standing army. Lease, rather than buy bases and large equipment.
Are you playing dumb or is it not an act. The firefighters put out the fire first and later send a bill. Police provide service first and later send a bill. You have to be pretending to not understand and making up worst case scenarios. No one can be as dumb as what you're typing.
If you can't afford to pay a bill for the cops or firemen, what happens? It's a known fact that the majority of bankruptcies come from medical emergencies. Imagine what would happen if we privatized the cops and the fire department.
The costs of medical emergencies are so high because the government subsidizes the costs of medical procedures and medical insurance.... and steals from taxpayers to "provide" these market distortions. Because the government has allowed (and encouraged) prices to get out of control, clinics think they can charge whatever they want and get away with it. Insurance companies typically eat these out of control costs, but the uninsured have less bargaining power. Less government means lower prices.
If we privatized the police and billed people for their services, it's a damn good bet that most people, rather than pay a police bill, are gonna be more likely to take matters into their own hands when crime hits them. We'll basically end up like the Wild West, a "Mad Max" movie, or "Escape From New York"/"Escape From LA".
After all, many people are gonna figure "why should I pay a $200 bill for police when I can buy a box of ammunition for maybe $20 and deal with the shit myself?"
This clip feels like a conspiracy in itself. I don't necessarily think the cost for college would go down if no subsidizing exist. Locals don't have the money, but colleges can always recruit international students for revenue. By subsidizing for college, you get more locals to college hence building your nation's future. International students flee the country once they have their education.
I would like to see a counter argument on this one. This is so one sided towards Ron Paul's POV.
Agreed. Let the colleges go under. Most of them are nothing more than marxist liberal brainwashing camps anyway. Join the military and get a REAL education, learning a profitable skilled trade, then start your own business. It worked for me.
I laugh at my high school classmates who went to college and graduated and are now begging for jobs at McDonald's and Meijer. Serves those losers right!!
The gooks are beating us now, dumbass. Most Chinese 6th graders are 3 times better educated than most American high school graduates, even most American college graduates. At 6th grade, the gooks 6th can do algebra, calculus, statistics, etc. Meanwhile, most American high school and college grads can't even do simple addition or subtraction, or read, or spell. Half of them can't even write their own fucking name! Worse, most of them are fat and/or can't pass a drug test. So fucking pathetic!!
Letting colleges face the consequences of their runaway spending is the best way to make colleges affordable. Subsidizing college is just enabling the spending addiction of spoiled college administrators.
How about take a look at the European model for health care and university education where both are free, taxes are only slightly higher than they are in the U.S., and the quality is way ahead of us. Maybe some government isnt bad. Maybe the government needs to be involved in some areas so that we the public are not continually victimized by big corporations such as hospitals, insurance companies and the educational establishment.
But when the shit hits the fan in another 12 to 36 months people will be begging for change again and this time they might be ready to run to a 3rd party.
I know for a fact that none of my upper division professors gave a flying f*** about the job market and if I could get a job after graduation. They were there to do research and could care less about the students.
I was just thinking of advising my uncle to send his kids off to US colleges. I now think it is not worth it. Besides, the cost is going to run up so high one will never repay the loans.
It's easier for a libertarian to win if he or she runs in the Libertarian Party.
There will be at least a three way split in the vote, and it has the added advantage of killing off the Republican Party. The Rs need to be killed off in order to restore liberty to America. There is no point boarding and taking over a sinking ship that is being abandoned.
Hundreds of third party and independent candidates were elected in the 20th century.
The LP could win if only they had a decent management team to run the party, recruit and train candidates, and plan a media outreach and party building plan that was based on the actual American political system.
The American people will vote for a decent, well financed, 3rd party candidate. It has been done hundreds of times.
The LP has failed only due to its poor leadership.
Do you have a source for those numbers or are you just making them up as you go? Even if it is hundreds, which I'm skeptical unless you are counting small, local offices, it's still a tiny fraction of those who have been elected (easily less than 1%). If you think that's a good record then no wonder you think L's and I's have a shot at winning.
The percentages are not small, they are minuscule. Sure, 3rd party candidates can win in extreme but most spend their time getting ballot access. A party takeover has been taking place for several years so to say it can't happen is quite short-sighted. There are more liberty minded Republicans in office now than there are 3rd party candidates. The GOP is gone and liberty minded candidates are filling the vacuum. It is happening and will continue. Wishful thinking is all you have to offer.
Even if your assertion that Ron Paul is the only liberty-minded candidate in Congress (which is a patently false statement) were true, that would still mean there are more liberty-minded Republicans than there are Libertarians (or Independents worth a crap). Talk about dreaming? Look in the mirror bucko.
Hate to break it to you, but the vast majority of Americans view any 3rd party candidates, including Libertarians, as weirdo dingbats. The LP doesn't stand a chance against the Demopublicans. Peter, of course, is right yet again. The way to defeat the Repugnicans is to take them over and present the Libertarian message through them. Invasion of the Repug snatchers.
Since Obama's stimulus was wasteful, politically directed pork... and his health care plan is an assault on our freedom, people will be more fed up with the democrats... especially when Obama and Bernanke's inflation cause prices to rise uncontrollably.
student loans are the most predatory lending products out there. These kids are getting charged juice WHILE they are attending AND they can't default if their lives go bad. And the govt is on the side of sallie mae as their collecting strong arm. When you add credit and subsidize an asset the price of the asset increases. we saw it with housing market. These kids will need to net at least 3K a month to live and they will be competing with all of southeast asian 4 dollar an hour labor.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
No free market in higher education??? Does this guy get stupider by the day??? There are over 10,000 colleges/universities competing for your tuition dollar. THAT is FREE MARKET. Cut student loans and college costs will come down?? SCHIFF!!! Do you understand the difference between revenues and costs? Because you have the two mixed up. No wonder nobody takes this guy seriously. IDIOT.
ok, um. how do i make this clear to you. the student LOANS are not free market. they are GUARANTEED by the gov't. in other words if the student doesnt pay the loan back to the university, the gov't will pay the university with our tax dollars. the same way housing loans are GUARANTEED, which creates the housing prices to skyrocket and a bubble. when gov't gets involved it is NOT free market.
in fact, virtually everyone who listens to Schiff takes him seriously. you entirely missed his point.
I'm doing some research, and I think you probably have the answers. Does Bush live up to his name? Did Obama inherit the his penis gene from his black side or his white? I just thought you might know since you obviously suck the richest dick in town...
Those are some very good questions you have there. Obama obviously inherited his baby dick via the black side of his family because everyone knows that the Europenis is the largest one around.
the point at where the universities compete to have you is free market, you're correct on that. but HOW YOU PAY is extremely bureaucratically controlled. anytime the gov't gets involved with anything, it gets more expensive.
so yes, if you cut the gov't guarantee part of the loan process, the college costs will come down.
have you ever asked yourself why our tuition goes up EVERY YEAR? that's NOT supposed to happen. thats NOT normal. thats your gov't for ya.
o Israel has killed Americans (eg. Sailors on USS Liberty, Rachel Corrie, etc...)
o Israel spies on this country (eg. Pollard, Kadish, AIPAC, etc...)
o Israel bought our politicians with our taxes.
o Israel steals our taxes, hence their higher income.
o Israel uses our country as their toilet.
Want more? Checkout my playlist.
Please share this post with others, and demand that your Senator and/or Representative uphold the laws when it comes to Israel's heinous crimes. Peace!
The best way would be to have cheaper alternatives. In this day and age why is it so costly to get information when on the internet it is virtually free? Have online classes etc. Cut costs, change the system. Recognize online education's degrees. ppl go to college not to learn, but to raise their earning power, grant other education the ability to raise that power, increase competition between educational institutions.
I completely agree 100% I predict within the next few years there will be a huge paradigm shift relative to the views of education. Universities used to be great because where else could someone come across such a wide array of knowledge and information? But guess, what it's now competing with the internet! People are going to soon recognize that it doesnt matter where you went to study and who's name is on the degree. Many forgot the purpose of why a degree was desired in the first place.
Ya right now it seems to be some kind of useless pyramid scheme where schools bribe employers to raise income for grads with one hand, while extorting huge amounts of money from the incoming undergrads. Sure you learn a bit in college, but I've learned so much more in my free time researching on the web or w/e. School is a total waste of money, which is just a way of paying your dues in this backward society. If it was only for the sake of learning, I would go to class for free...but no degree.
A Liberal Arts College Education is a total con and a welfare system for college teachers and administration. Politicians feed money to this con is order to buy votes. Peter is one of the few guys with the BALLS to state the obvious!
Hey, I went to your website but I don't see the full speeches.. did you lie just to get me there expecting that I would click every google ad in sight? :)
Not only has the price of a college education sky-rocketed, the quality has nosedived at the same time. The stupidest people I met while in the US had a college ed. They get brainwashed, propagandized, not educated but can't afford to criticize their alma mater considering what it cost them.
Economics, medicine, law, each area in society today is like a dinosaur for all the good college did to these professionals. At most college is good for networking.
It's totally possible to have globalization in a free market system. Just do it privately. The governments should not be involved in our private trades. If I want cotton from China, instead of South Carolina it's no one's business but my own (and the sellers, of course.)
We tried laissez-faire once and nothing got done about child labor, unsafe working conditions, or workers being exploited by unscrupulous business owners. Regulations wouldn't be necessary if all businesses acted conscientously and did what was in their workers' and the community's best interest. It's kinda like laws requiring dog owners to pick up their dogs' poop- the laws wouldn't be necessary if all dog owners picked up after them, but all too many won't unless there's a law compelling them.
Do you know nothing about history!? Child labor was an improvement in the standard of living for many families. Children worked in factories because they offered better wages than farms. How do you possibly blame employers for providing jobs that children were willing to work??? People back then know the value of work... and knew that compensation came from working, not complaining about their jobs or management.
Employers utilized child labor largely because they could pay them less than adults. It would still be the norm today if unions and others hadn't campaigned against it and the the government hadn't stepped in.
And children and their parents accepted the terms because it was beneficial to them as well. Do you actually think that offering someone a job makes them a victim? I pity you.
When a family's only options are accepting their kids working for less than $1 a day in unsafe conditions or starving, you can bet they're gonna accept them working. If you think paying workers barely subsistence wages isn't making them victims, then I pity you.
When leftists think they can micromanage people's lives for them, it results in less opportunity, not more. Now you may think that you have all the answers for how someone living in poverty should live HIS life, or how an employer should run HIS company, but you do not have the right to impose arbitrary rules on people in another nation, just because we have a more prosperous economy than they have. Comparing our economy to an undeveloped economy, or today's economy to the past is erroneous.
So preventing and cleaning up pollution, requiring workplace safety measures, workmen's comp for those injured on the job, maternity leave, the 40 hour workweek, etc, are all unjust government intrusion? Yeah, God forbid that those poor business owners have to provide a safe work environment that doesn't pollute the air or water around it. After all, free citizens have an inalienable right to be maimed or killed at work without any comp and breathe toxic air and drink polluted water. Right?
All could have and would have been developed without government intrusion. Technology, production, competition, and capitalism provide these improvements in our standard of living... and government and unions fraudulently claim the credit. There is no need for intrusive legislation and regulation to force the process that competition and litigation could provide without such force.
You're pretty much wrong, because providing and maintaining safety and anti-pollution measures would cut into a company's bottom line, and most companies aren't gonna pay for anything that cuts into their bottom line unless they're required to. They sure don't provide or maintain them in China- pollution near factories and mines is a huge problem over there because what few anti-pollution laws they have aren't really enforced. Same in many other countries we've sent our jobs to.
companies will improve pollution controls for community goodwill and public relations... or to reduce their liability... and if they don't litigation can remedy the situation. Regulation treats employers as guilty until proven innocent -- completely antithetical to our Bill of Rights and the foundation of our justice system.
Litigation alone without laws to back it up isn't gonna do jack shit, because companies can and will get the best lawyers money can buy to finagle their way out of it.
The reason companies don't make such upgrades in China is because they are protected by the government. The government looks the other way and suppresses community dissent that could otherwise reform the company's priorities and practices. It is the government condoning pollution that allows China's pollution... just like it was the Democrats condoning fraudulent accounting at FannieMae and FreddieMac that brought down our financial markets.
So unions denied children the right to work, just like they want to deny adults the right to work (unless they pay tribute to union slavemasters). Oh, yeah, I'm sure glad we have unions to take away our rights.
Kids should be in school, not working full time. The fact that kids working aren't getting an education makes it so much easier for unscrupulous employers to take unfair advantage of them because those kids can't read and usually can't count.
Children should help their families prosper. That means education if the parents have the resources to give them an education. That means employment if the parents don't earn enough to support the family. Working to support the family was the best choice for many. Who are you to deny them their first employment experience, first chance to earn job skills, and chance to help support the family if needed?
So education should be limited to only those whose parents have the resources to afford it? Yeah, because mass illiteracy is such a wonderful thing. Right? Illiterate, uneducated people are easier to exploit than those who've had an education.
I have nothing against working to support the family, but having kids who are barely out of their diapers and are too young to understand what's going on is at the very least, highly unethical.
Your hyperbole is disgraceful. "Child labor" meant teenagers, pre-teens at most. These same children would otherwise be working family farms. "child labor" factories offer better standard of living and more opportunity than these families would otherwise have.
Power-hungry politicians and whining limousine liberals will always find some excuse for more regulation. It doesn't matter how virtuously businesses are run, leftists always find an excuse to take away the rights of free people.
You seem to think that we wouldn't need/have schools if the government didn't provide them. Of course we would. There would be a burgeoning demand for them :P In fact, I'd consider buying one of the former govt schools and running it myself, as a business. It'd be the best education around, and believe me, my local kids aren't the richest, so I clearly wouldn't be charging more than their parents could afford once they had their tax money back.
Secondly, if you can't afford to provide for your kids (including education), you should not have them. Its not only irresponsible, its immoral, not only to your children, but to your fellow equal citizens who now have to pick up where you've failed.
There will always be irresponsible parents, but should their kids be required to suffer for it? Be denied food, education, because their parents had them when they couldn't afford them? It's funny how a lot of the people who want to get rid of public schools and our safety net also want to ban abortion. Get rid of abortion and you'll have a lot more kids needing those services and programs. But I guess we really need to keep our prisons filled, don't we?
Further, many parents started families when they had good paying jobs and could provide for their kids. Then their jobs got eliminated, shipped overseas, or given to foreign guest workers willing to do those jobs for a fraction of what Americans can afford to live on, and thus the parents either ended up unemployed or having to settle for far lower paying jobs, usually at fast food or retail type places that pay barely enough to keep a roof over their heads and food on the table.
Might want to get ahold of inflation then, so that those jobs pay wages that can actually afford goods and services.
Further, criminal neglect of children is punishable by law. It would be so under the public or private school system. I'll ignore your abortion statement, since it was just meant to instigate the religious-right.
The problems you're trying to fix with government, are created BY government. High prices, unattainable education, jobs going overseas, high cost of living...
We tried laissez-faire once and had child labor, 12-19 hour workdays in unsafe conditions with few/no safety measures for wages barely enough to afford a cramped tenement apartment that may or may not have had running water- those who were hurt on the job were "compensated" by being fired and replaced with an uninjured worker, polluted air and water, only wealthier families being able to afford an education for their kids- many children of factory/mill/mine workers never got to go to school.
No, but there are a lot of good videos and a few that are GREAT. I tend to give out the 5 star ratings and feel like it's cheap to hit a great one with the same rating.
after what the Oligarchy did to the American People, face it we'll have to go through some socialism until people can trust business and government again.
People still trust business, I mean as much as they always did. It's the businesses with govt funding you have to watch out for. And no way do we need socialism. We need to do what our founding fathers did and stand up to the govt and say nor more. By force if we have to. By the people for the people, right? Last time I checked anyways.
Having more and bigger guns doesn't guarantee victory. Look at what the Iraqi insurgents have been able to do with little more than old AK's and homemade explosives.
Well if you charge someone to teach them something...then yes it is. Do you mean that it shouldn't be a business? That everyone should teach people for free?
Education is for the good of the people, to open them up, to maximize their potential, to inspire them. Universities should do research, and not always on what will make the most money and raise shareholder value. Thinking of it as strictly business is wrong.
The schools themselves are treating it as a business!!! Why is it that the salesman is always accusing the customer of being overly concerned with the price but the salesman never wants to lower his commission?
Making money from educating people is not wrong. There's nothing immoral about it. If they don't think of it as a business they will go bankrupt and there won't be any university outside of charity donations. The problem is that they're too expensive and bloated because of gov't subsidies- and removing those would lower the cost of tuition so students can finally afford it. Not only that but making cuts will help Universities focus on what they're best at- and provide students with the best edu.
Exactly- Universities have become huge and bloated with nonsense courses they weren't originally intended for. They need to make cuts so tuition can come down and people can afford to go to college without going into massive debt
Are you implying that you'd pay money to send your kid to a school without humanities, arts and music? I wouldn't. How absurd. In a free market educational system, demand by the consumer will force the inclusion of fields of education presently discarded by wasteful government bureaucrat. The only way a private school in a free market system does away with humanities, arts & music is if the consumer continues to do business with that school.
The humanities, arts and music departments don't make any money. They barely survive. As strategic business units (SBU's) in a corporation they would do very poorly.
Dimitril- but God forbid they should cut the all-important sports programs. Yeah, who needs arts, music, theatre, or other humanities when all we need is football, baseball, and basketball?
it is when you come outta school owing youre lender 80k+ and you havent found a job, even with the 1-2 year deferrements its still not guarunteed youre gonna find a job, how many students actually find a career they want to pursue, my brother went to collge and medical school and graduated with 100k of debt on his hands and he still hasnt found a steady paying job, and i havent even talked about the outrageous interests rates they throw on top of that
Secondly, its not only about profit or commission necessarily. There are plenty of non-profit private schools who operate their school as a business. Still concerned with the bottom line and pleasing their consumers, they will continue to make decisions for their school that benefit their customers and its own health and longevity. Government organizations do not need to worry about health or longevity. They are ensured it by their very nature. Why compete when you don't have to.
The government is an expert at breaking your leg and then handing you a crutch and saying, "See without me, you couldn't walk." What percent of federal government activities IS NOT characterized by that statement? I'd say an extremely low percentage.
Haha you got me laughing with the first line. That's good. You know who else does this? racketeers and mafiosos, you pay them "protection" money to protect yourself from them. Classic!
In a lot of cases education has become a form of corporate welfare. In the past the company had to pay to train you. Now you have to pay to get trained with no guarentee of employment. Post H.S. education is over-rated and unneccesary for most people. If business needs trained employees, let them train them at their own expense, not mine.
Pretty much any job paying significantly above minimum wage requires some kind of post high school education. Otherwise the best one can usually look forward to is a dead end job at some place like McDonald's or WalMart.
It is not that jobs do not require training, they often do. The problem is that we are expected to get that training at our own expense with no offer of employment. We need to go to a college at great expense to maybe get a job. The companies are using a college education (subsidized by us or the gov.) to get free training for employees without any commitment. If companies had to pay for training they would be less willing to hire and dump employees. They would run themselves better.
This point of view doesn't make sense to some people, but the point is.....
lots of kids graduate college when they should be just going into the workforce. The individual would actually be better off attending a 2 year university or no post high school education at all.
"60 Minutes" did a segment on 2 year colleges a couple years ago. Basically the job placement rates at those schools were lies. Most of their grads ended up working in minimum wage fast food or retail jobs- basically the same jobs they could get with no more than a high school education.
Pretty much any jobs paying significantly above minimum wage requiressome kind of post secondary education. Otherwise, the best one can usually look forward to is some dead end job at a "hamburger manufacturing facility" and/or at WalMart.
If we got rid of minimum wage, what would keep an unscrupulous employer from dropping their employee's pay down to less than $1 a day? Once someone does that, their competitors will end up having to follow suit and we'll end up aggravating the race to the bottom we're already in. Workers will end up having to share a 1 bedroom apartment or trailer with 10-30 other people or sleeping on the business floor or in company dorms with no running water like they do in China.
Competition from other employers keeps wages up to levels that are fair and sustainable. Businesses are more to be trusted to set wages than government is to be trusted to do anything.
That only works when there's more jobs than there are workers available for them. It's certainly not the case when an employer can count on dozens, if not hundreds or even thousands of applicants for each opening. That's one reason many businesses have had such a massive hard-on for illegal immigrants, because they'll gladly work for less than $5 an hour in any conditions, no matter how unsafe they may be.
And there would be more jobs if there was less government stealing from the people who create jobs. Government and coercive collective bargaining is what discourages job creation.
Workers end up with less when government taxes and forced union dues steal their wages. Workers have more to fear from government and from unions than they do from management.
Taxes are simply the price for living in a civilized society. I'm sure you want to breathe clean air, have safe water, adequate police protection, garbage pickup, see the streets maintained and potholes filled, etc. All those cost money, and of course taxes raise that money. If you don't wanna pay union dues, you can get a crap wage non-union job at some place like McDonald's or WalMart. Pretty much all the benefits that workers enjoy were fought for by the unions.
Taxes are much too high and government insists on doing way too much. Taxes and govt spending need to be slashed by 75% or more. Government needs to return freedom to the people and treat people like adults.
Having a non-union job is worth it. You don't have to suffer the endless hatred and propaganda of brainwashed union drones. Just protect the right of workers to a secret ballot, without being intimidated and tricked by union thugs.
Taxes are simply a way to use force against people. Income taxes are particularly stupid because they punish people for being productive. Laws against freedom to work (including "minimum wage" and "child labor" and "card check") are counterproductive because they mean less jobs are created, less goods and services are provided, standard of living falls, and less tax revenues.
Don't wanna pay taxes? OK, You and your buddies can have massive Tea Partys down at the river bank, roast dogs, pass the homie jug, and kick ass!!! A real honest to goodness tent city of rugged individuals hoarding their goods & refusing to share. You can grow potatoes next to your tent, and practice a free market exercise of trading them for carrots.
At last you will have your utopia! No taxes!! No roads. No sewer. No water. "No phone, no lights, no motor car, not a single luxury, like Robinson Crusoe, it's primitive as can be". Just you & tent city. You do remember how to make coffee over the fire right? Cause no electricity to run the coffee pot. Up at the break of a dewy cold morning, chopping wood for that fire.
Improvements to standard of living come from business, not from taxes. Less taxes means a better quality of life with more luxuries, not fewer. Less government means more advancement in standard of living. Less government means cheaper and more plentiful electricity. less government means cars are more affordable. Amenities become more affordable and more accessible without government interference.
Providing energy has been profitable since the beginning of time. You don't need the state to provide it. Even with infrastructure costs. You live in a fantasy land to believe that without the government there would be no services. The demand would create a market rate for us to purchase those goods and services. The demand would create the jobs necessary, not the state.
Wrong. When Bush cut taxes, our standard of living went up. When Demoncrats took power and signaled they would reimpose higher taxes, our standard of living fell.
Under Bush, our only real job growth was in non-tradeable domestic services that don't create wealth. Of course this has been going on since Reagan, but the gutting of our manufacturing and high tech industries was basically on steroids on the Chimp's watch. Only the very wealthy really benefitted from Bush's tax cuts. For everyone else, it was kinda like taking out a loan for a weekend in Las Vegas. That may've been fun, but you're gonna end up paying for it.
By not supporting the extension of Bush's tax cuts, the Democrats are raising taxes on the 10% bracket by 50% percent, yet raising the taxes on the 25% bracket by only 12%, on the 28% bracket by 10%, on the 33% bracket by 9%, and on the 35% bracket by only 13%.
Mexico, China, and Thailand are creating jobs while the artificial, arbitrary wage floors in America are causing us to lose jobs. So, letting employers rather than government set wages is working much better. They actually have more jobs.
So you would have no problem with workers being paid barely enough to eat and having to sleep on the shop floor or in a company dorm with no running water or in a cardboard or tin shack or share a 1 bedroom apartment or trailer with 10-30 other people, with some people no doubt sleeping in the kitchen or the bathroom?
Because indentured servitude is such a wonderful thing, right?
We're indentured servants now :P What other way can you describe being forced to pay a tax to be able to live and produce? You're far too dramatic, get some grounding and educate yourself.
Taxes are simply the price for living in civilized society. Maybe, for example, you'd rather have dirt roads or toll booths every other mile instead of paying a tax for paved highways?
This has been flagged as spam show
College costs are out of control. 70% of staff is not involved with teaching. Sports facilities are not justified. Ten year'ed teachers are WAKO overhead. Tax payers should demand to control balance sheets of colleges !!!!!! This a runaway train and the new generation will be the victim of this Bubble of greed
abeashxx 2 months ago
Schiff is so spot on, I hope he wins the next time he runs for office.
The machine will go after him if his name really becomes mainstream. Youtube really helps spread his message.
EconCat88 9 months ago
I'm a home owner in OH. Home prices were fraudulently inflated, to get higher taxes for the schools, teachers pensions, teacher unions, entitlement programs, etc., etc.. When I went to school, we had 30 to 36 students in a class. Now the class sizes are 14-18, twice as many teachers have been hired resulting in larger teacher unions, 2 annual salary increases, & a lower education standards for our children. I'm voting ALL tax levies down until the waste is curbed,& fiscal sanity is restored!
TheDigitalWeb 1 year ago 2
What an idiot. Of course colleges would go bankrupt. There's no way big research Universities could subsist on affordable tuition.
SpazzzDog 1 year ago
I know the Libertarian party is great. Who in the world could read about the party platform and it's principle and not agree? So then why is it so unpopular? I hear people complain about things all the time but they always go crazy at the last second and vote Democrat or Republican. Are we the only people left on Earth who can actually think for ourselves?
Piscivorus 2 years ago 2
Also, in 2006 the CIA funded secular warlords so part of the warlord problem is caused by us.
DaveDoggOwns 2 years ago
Law ad order is provided privately by Somalian customary law. The diya defines the laws regarding such acts as murder and theft. Some secular courts exist but sharia courts are more instrumental in ensuring the legal order. Other private courts are supported with the donations of successful businessmen who find it beneficial to fund the pressence of courts in urban areas. Dispute resolution is free and speedy by international standards (Nenova 2004 and Harfod 2004).
DaveDoggOwns 2 years ago
"Somalia boasts the cheapest, clearest cell-phone calls on the continent" The Economist 2005
Somalia's export of cattle to Kenya has doubled since 1991.
Their Airline industry has gotten better since 1991(Nenova 2004)
The Somalian shilling has gotten more stable post-1991.
Taxes and restriction on trade and movement are lower post-1991.
There is no longer a central bank to cause hyperinflation post-1991.
DaveDoggOwns 2 years ago
Since anarchy took place life expectancy, child immunization, number of physicians, access to sanitation, access to health facilities, (non government) GDP, # of people with radios, tv, telephones, has all increased, Infant with low birth weight, infant mortality rate, materanal mortality rate, extreme poverty (less than 1$ a day), and fatalitie due to measles has all decreased as a result of the government collapsing.
Also, Somalians have substantially more civil liberties post-1991.
DaveDoggOwns 2 years ago
By subsidizing colleges, you steal from everyone else. Let the people who are using the college pay for the college. Let everyone else keep what they worked for without getting robbed by the government.
herbs814 2 years ago
I suppose you think that subsidizing K-12 schools is also stealing from everyone else? Taking that to its logical conclusion, that would make subsidizing roads, streets, bridges, harbors, airports, police, firefighters, the military, our space program, prisons, etc, stealing from everyone else. Yeah, let the people who need the cops or fire department pay for them- if you don't have the money to pay them, they let your house burn down or get robbed. Right?
Pbirv 2 years ago
Can schools be paid for without taxes? Yes. Then they should. The constitution gives the federal government no authority to be involved in education at all. Why is the government in education at all, other than to indoctrinate and dumb down our children. Private schools are so much better, it is criminal to force children into government schools.
herbs814 2 years ago
And private schools don't indoctrinate? Also, if we privatize education, there's gonna be many kids whose parents can't afford tuition. What happens to them? It's a safe bet we'll end up dealing with them in the criminal justice system. Courtrooms and jail /prison cells cost way more than classrooms and textbooks.
Pbirv 2 years ago
Private schools offer scholarships. And they are so much better that grateful alumni offer donations. Plus, parents would have so much more money without all that the government robs from them to pay for their overpriced, undeperforming system. Private schools educate better, and for a lower cost. There is no reason to keep government schools other than greedy teacher unions.
herbs814 2 years ago
Furthermore, private schools can refuse to admit anyone they wish, including but not limited to kids who parents aren't of the "right" religion or aren't active members of the "right" church, or whose parents are single or divorced, or whose parents are a gay/lesbian couple, or who are living w/ their grandparents or an aunt/uncle, or who don't live in the "right" kind of neighborhood, or who are learning disabled- most private schools aren't equipped or staffed to deal w/ handicapped kids.
Pbirv 2 years ago
For all the problems that public schools have, that's the good thing about them- everyone, regardless of religion, family, handicap, etc, has an opportunity to have an education.
Pbirv 2 years ago
There is nothing good about stealing from people to fund government schools and refusing to hold their incompetent employees accountable. Just another wasteful, coercive boondoggle.
herbs814 2 years ago
There would be a private school for every conceivable segment of the population if the government didn't steal from everyone the means by which they could afford to either attend a school, sponsor a child, or operate their own school. The possibilities are there if the greedy government would just get out of our way.
herbs814 2 years ago
And how long would that take? What happens to those kids in the time it takes to set up those schools? Also if we got rid of public schools, there's gonna be those parents who just plain refuse to pay for their kids to go to school. Nor will there ever be enough scholarships to go around to everyone who needs one, and many of those scholarships won't cover the entire tuition or expenses. "Sorry Kate, we couldn't get you a scholarship. Now take your place along your little brother in the mines".
Pbirv 2 years ago
Privatizing services that the government had held in a coercive death grip is a worthy goal, even if it takes time. (and of course, the political process will make the pace of change gradual). Private schools offer better education at lower costs. Tax vouchers would offer a transition away from government control of education.
And don't whine about taking money away from the govt schools. The greedy govt took the money away from the people it truely belongs to in the first place.
herbs814 2 years ago
Pbirv, why do you always turn everything into a catastrophe? Your lack of problem solving skills are frightening. Police and fire can be funded without taxes. A volunteer department can be funded by donations and fundraisers. Or a fee-for-service system would encourage responsibility. If a house is on fire, firemen put out the fire and send you a bill, just like when you visit a health clinic. See how easy that is. Why is everything a catastrophe with you? Did mommy not tuck you in at night?
herbs814 2 years ago
And what about those who can't afford to pay the police or fire bill? Yeah, I suppose the firemen would tell those people to "get out the marshmallows" if their house is on fire. I suppose you think that those who can't afford to pay the police bill can always get a lynch mob going after someone who breaks into their home or assaults and/or robs them or their loved ones. Yeah, I guess the "Mad Max" movies really had things down right. Right?
Pbirv 2 years ago
I suppose you think the military could also be funded without taxes? Yeah, I could see the Air Force holding a bake sale to buy a new bomber and the Navy selling raffle tickets to buy a new attack sub or aircraft carrier.
Pbirv 2 years ago
Military: national defense is one of the few activities of the federal government that is actually authorized by the constitution. (There is no such authority to be involved in education or health care.) For this reason, taxes for defense may be acceptable.
some ideas: reduce the role and size of the federal military. Allow state militias and private militias to train their units and contract their services, rather than large standing army. Lease, rather than buy bases and large equipment.
herbs814 2 years ago
Are you playing dumb or is it not an act. The firefighters put out the fire first and later send a bill. Police provide service first and later send a bill. You have to be pretending to not understand and making up worst case scenarios. No one can be as dumb as what you're typing.
herbs814 2 years ago
If you can't afford to pay a bill for the cops or firemen, what happens? It's a known fact that the majority of bankruptcies come from medical emergencies. Imagine what would happen if we privatized the cops and the fire department.
Pbirv 2 years ago
The costs of medical emergencies are so high because the government subsidizes the costs of medical procedures and medical insurance.... and steals from taxpayers to "provide" these market distortions. Because the government has allowed (and encouraged) prices to get out of control, clinics think they can charge whatever they want and get away with it. Insurance companies typically eat these out of control costs, but the uninsured have less bargaining power. Less government means lower prices.
herbs814 2 years ago
If we privatized the police and billed people for their services, it's a damn good bet that most people, rather than pay a police bill, are gonna be more likely to take matters into their own hands when crime hits them. We'll basically end up like the Wild West, a "Mad Max" movie, or "Escape From New York"/"Escape From LA".
Pbirv 2 years ago
After all, many people are gonna figure "why should I pay a $200 bill for police when I can buy a box of ammunition for maybe $20 and deal with the shit myself?"
Pbirv 2 years ago
This clip feels like a conspiracy in itself. I don't necessarily think the cost for college would go down if no subsidizing exist. Locals don't have the money, but colleges can always recruit international students for revenue. By subsidizing for college, you get more locals to college hence building your nation's future. International students flee the country once they have their education.
I would like to see a counter argument on this one. This is so one sided towards Ron Paul's POV.
spiritsA 2 years ago
Agreed. Let the colleges go under. Most of them are nothing more than marxist liberal brainwashing camps anyway. Join the military and get a REAL education, learning a profitable skilled trade, then start your own business. It worked for me.
I laugh at my high school classmates who went to college and graduated and are now begging for jobs at McDonald's and Meijer. Serves those losers right!!
DarrelfromZeeland 2 years ago 2
Let the Colleges go under? Well I guess China has already beaten us in education then if you were president.
kayakofan1 2 years ago 8
The gooks are beating us now, dumbass. Most Chinese 6th graders are 3 times better educated than most American high school graduates, even most American college graduates. At 6th grade, the gooks 6th can do algebra, calculus, statistics, etc. Meanwhile, most American high school and college grads can't even do simple addition or subtraction, or read, or spell. Half of them can't even write their own fucking name! Worse, most of them are fat and/or can't pass a drug test. So fucking pathetic!!
DarrelfromZeeland 2 years ago
Letting colleges face the consequences of their runaway spending is the best way to make colleges affordable. Subsidizing college is just enabling the spending addiction of spoiled college administrators.
herbs814 2 years ago
How about take a look at the European model for health care and university education where both are free, taxes are only slightly higher than they are in the U.S., and the quality is way ahead of us. Maybe some government isnt bad. Maybe the government needs to be involved in some areas so that we the public are not continually victimized by big corporations such as hospitals, insurance companies and the educational establishment.
medliberty 2 years ago
But when the shit hits the fan in another 12 to 36 months people will be begging for change again and this time they might be ready to run to a 3rd party.
borat443 2 years ago 2
I know for a fact that none of my upper division professors gave a flying f*** about the job market and if I could get a job after graduation. They were there to do research and could care less about the students.
nico3641 2 years ago
I was just thinking of advising my uncle to send his kids off to US colleges. I now think it is not worth it. Besides, the cost is going to run up so high one will never repay the loans.
soccom8341576 2 years ago
"bankrupt" = b a n k r u p t
WonjuEnglishSchool 2 years ago
Peter, you're wrong about politics.
It's easier for a libertarian to win if he or she runs in the Libertarian Party.
There will be at least a three way split in the vote, and it has the added advantage of killing off the Republican Party. The Rs need to be killed off in order to restore liberty to America. There is no point boarding and taking over a sinking ship that is being abandoned.
WonjuEnglishSchool 2 years ago
Even the most uncritical review of political history proves you dead wrong.
Ncturnal 2 years ago
Hundreds of third party and independent candidates were elected in the 20th century.
The LP could win if only they had a decent management team to run the party, recruit and train candidates, and plan a media outreach and party building plan that was based on the actual American political system.
The American people will vote for a decent, well financed, 3rd party candidate. It has been done hundreds of times.
The LP has failed only due to its poor leadership.
WonjuEnglishSchool 2 years ago
Do you have a source for those numbers or are you just making them up as you go? Even if it is hundreds, which I'm skeptical unless you are counting small, local offices, it's still a tiny fraction of those who have been elected (easily less than 1%). If you think that's a good record then no wonder you think L's and I's have a shot at winning.
Ncturnal 2 years ago
Yes. The source is Richard Winger of Ballot Access News.
You should read Ballot Access News. It's a great source of info.
True, the percentages are small. But, it shows that 3rd party and independents can win.
The thing that does not work is a takeover of a major party by some freedom loving group. That has never been done.
WonjuEnglishSchool 2 years ago
The percentages are not small, they are minuscule. Sure, 3rd party candidates can win in extreme but most spend their time getting ballot access. A party takeover has been taking place for several years so to say it can't happen is quite short-sighted. There are more liberty minded Republicans in office now than there are 3rd party candidates. The GOP is gone and liberty minded candidates are filling the vacuum. It is happening and will continue. Wishful thinking is all you have to offer.
Ncturnal 2 years ago
Wow!
Talk about dreaming.
The only Liberty minded member of Congress is:
Ron Paul.
The Republican Party is nearly dead. For the good of American and to restore our Liberty, it needs to be finished off.
The Republican Party was a 3rd Party. They were the 5th party to elect a President. They killed off the Whigs. Now it's their turn.
WonjuEnglishSchool 2 years ago
Even if your assertion that Ron Paul is the only liberty-minded candidate in Congress (which is a patently false statement) were true, that would still mean there are more liberty-minded Republicans than there are Libertarians (or Independents worth a crap). Talk about dreaming? Look in the mirror bucko.
Ncturnal 2 years ago
Hate to break it to you, but the vast majority of Americans view any 3rd party candidates, including Libertarians, as weirdo dingbats. The LP doesn't stand a chance against the Demopublicans. Peter, of course, is right yet again. The way to defeat the Repugnicans is to take them over and present the Libertarian message through them. Invasion of the Repug snatchers.
Sentinel4truth 2 years ago 2
"Hate to break it to you, but the vast majority of Americans view any 3rd party candidates as weirdo dingbats"
That's the problem. Of course our corporate owned media does everything it can to promote and perpetuate that image.
Paradoxically, people are fed up with BOTH Reps and Dems.
Definitely NOT a good mix. I'm betting things are gonna get quite ugly in the next decade.
Pbirv 2 years ago
Since Obama's stimulus was wasteful, politically directed pork... and his health care plan is an assault on our freedom, people will be more fed up with the democrats... especially when Obama and Bernanke's inflation cause prices to rise uncontrollably.
herbs814 2 years ago
After the way Bush and Cheney fucked this country over, I don't think there'll be another Republican in the White House anytime soon.
Pbirv 2 years ago
He might be right, the ship isnt sinking, its moored on a shoal.
FarFromEquilibrium 2 years ago
Peter's comments are self serving and not based on reality.
WonjuEnglishSchool 2 years ago
Need to fix the title.
Ncturnal 2 years ago 5
Let the Marxist professors get real jobs
PresidentTeleprompte 2 years ago 3
student loans are the most predatory lending products out there. These kids are getting charged juice WHILE they are attending AND they can't default if their lives go bad. And the govt is on the side of sallie mae as their collecting strong arm. When you add credit and subsidize an asset the price of the asset increases. we saw it with housing market. These kids will need to net at least 3K a month to live and they will be competing with all of southeast asian 4 dollar an hour labor.
anthonypesce 2 years ago 4
i like the plan... no more free student loans...........it gives them more responsibility
dan020350 2 years ago 2
Comment removed
bnash2002 2 years ago
Schiff looks like a crazy man flailing away with his arms
y2knoproblem 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
No free market in higher education??? Does this guy get stupider by the day??? There are over 10,000 colleges/universities competing for your tuition dollar. THAT is FREE MARKET. Cut student loans and college costs will come down?? SCHIFF!!! Do you understand the difference between revenues and costs? Because you have the two mixed up. No wonder nobody takes this guy seriously. IDIOT.
shahen13 2 years ago
ok, um. how do i make this clear to you. the student LOANS are not free market. they are GUARANTEED by the gov't. in other words if the student doesnt pay the loan back to the university, the gov't will pay the university with our tax dollars. the same way housing loans are GUARANTEED, which creates the housing prices to skyrocket and a bubble. when gov't gets involved it is NOT free market.
in fact, virtually everyone who listens to Schiff takes him seriously. you entirely missed his point.
tmac9938 2 years ago 4
you seem like you like penises.
sMC193 2 years ago
I'm doing some research, and I think you probably have the answers. Does Bush live up to his name? Did Obama inherit the his penis gene from his black side or his white? I just thought you might know since you obviously suck the richest dick in town...
lunaulander 2 years ago
Those are some very good questions you have there. Obama obviously inherited his baby dick via the black side of his family because everyone knows that the Europenis is the largest one around.
sMC193 2 years ago
the point at where the universities compete to have you is free market, you're correct on that. but HOW YOU PAY is extremely bureaucratically controlled. anytime the gov't gets involved with anything, it gets more expensive.
so yes, if you cut the gov't guarantee part of the loan process, the college costs will come down.
have you ever asked yourself why our tuition goes up EVERY YEAR? that's NOT supposed to happen. thats NOT normal. thats your gov't for ya.
tmac9938 2 years ago
Remember the "tea parties" where one woman yelled "burn the books" and another said to tear down the colleges.
DillonX 2 years ago
Our dollars will soon be worthless. Prepare for hyperinflation now. Signup for the free National Inflation Association newsletter at: Inflation . us
fjaos633 2 years ago
As a college student not on a student loan, but getting hurt by the higher prices:
Fuck Student Loans.
Surhotchaperchlorome 2 years ago
If u can afford to pay 4 college u should take the loan anyway and use your own money to invest in a conservative fund.
Entropy137 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
o Israel has killed Americans (eg. Sailors on USS Liberty, Rachel Corrie, etc...)
o Israel spies on this country (eg. Pollard, Kadish, AIPAC, etc...)
o Israel bought our politicians with our taxes.
o Israel steals our taxes, hence their higher income.
o Israel uses our country as their toilet.
Want more? Checkout my playlist.
Please share this post with others, and demand that your Senator and/or Representative uphold the laws when it comes to Israel's heinous crimes. Peace!
HateAllNazis 2 years ago
Peter Schiff will get my vote!! I love this guy!!
AldoRama69 2 years ago 2
3:39 Classic.
jbutte 2 years ago
For the whole speech you can go to the LPofConnecticut channel :)
LPofConnecticut 2 years ago
Sorry for my bad English... I disagree with peter here.
It's true that without credit college prices should drop, but a lot of people wont be able to study.
That's not what we want, we want everyone to have the right of education.
So, the solution is not to grant that right with credit, but to create free Estate universities.
FelipeValen 2 years ago
The best way would be to have cheaper alternatives. In this day and age why is it so costly to get information when on the internet it is virtually free? Have online classes etc. Cut costs, change the system. Recognize online education's degrees. ppl go to college not to learn, but to raise their earning power, grant other education the ability to raise that power, increase competition between educational institutions.
rockhardxrocker 2 years ago
I completely agree 100% I predict within the next few years there will be a huge paradigm shift relative to the views of education. Universities used to be great because where else could someone come across such a wide array of knowledge and information? But guess, what it's now competing with the internet! People are going to soon recognize that it doesnt matter where you went to study and who's name is on the degree. Many forgot the purpose of why a degree was desired in the first place.
audiohi 2 years ago 2
Ya right now it seems to be some kind of useless pyramid scheme where schools bribe employers to raise income for grads with one hand, while extorting huge amounts of money from the incoming undergrads. Sure you learn a bit in college, but I've learned so much more in my free time researching on the web or w/e. School is a total waste of money, which is just a way of paying your dues in this backward society. If it was only for the sake of learning, I would go to class for free...but no degree.
rockhardxrocker 2 years ago 3
A Liberal Arts College Education is a total con and a welfare system for college teachers and administration. Politicians feed money to this con is order to buy votes. Peter is one of the few guys with the BALLS to state the obvious!
AristophanesNow 2 years ago
Hey, I went to your website but I don't see the full speeches.. did you lie just to get me there expecting that I would click every google ad in sight? :)
delatroy 2 years ago
Not only has the price of a college education sky-rocketed, the quality has nosedived at the same time. The stupidest people I met while in the US had a college ed. They get brainwashed, propagandized, not educated but can't afford to criticize their alma mater considering what it cost them.
Economics, medicine, law, each area in society today is like a dinosaur for all the good college did to these professionals. At most college is good for networking.
Khamomil 2 years ago 2
globalization has failed. restore freemarket capitalism.
dec2 2 years ago 5
It's totally possible to have globalization in a free market system. Just do it privately. The governments should not be involved in our private trades. If I want cotton from China, instead of South Carolina it's no one's business but my own (and the sellers, of course.)
gwydion75 2 years ago 2
Great, let's put more Americans out of work and support a country that would just as soon wipe us out if we weren't such a cash cow for them.
Pbirv 2 years ago
What puts Americans out of work is government intrusion, regulation, taxation, and deficit spending. To have more jobs, we need LESS government.
herbs814 2 years ago
We tried laissez-faire once and nothing got done about child labor, unsafe working conditions, or workers being exploited by unscrupulous business owners. Regulations wouldn't be necessary if all businesses acted conscientously and did what was in their workers' and the community's best interest. It's kinda like laws requiring dog owners to pick up their dogs' poop- the laws wouldn't be necessary if all dog owners picked up after them, but all too many won't unless there's a law compelling them.
Pbirv 2 years ago
Do you know nothing about history!? Child labor was an improvement in the standard of living for many families. Children worked in factories because they offered better wages than farms. How do you possibly blame employers for providing jobs that children were willing to work??? People back then know the value of work... and knew that compensation came from working, not complaining about their jobs or management.
herbs814 2 years ago
Employers utilized child labor largely because they could pay them less than adults. It would still be the norm today if unions and others hadn't campaigned against it and the the government hadn't stepped in.
Pbirv 2 years ago
And children and their parents accepted the terms because it was beneficial to them as well. Do you actually think that offering someone a job makes them a victim? I pity you.
herbs814 2 years ago
When a family's only options are accepting their kids working for less than $1 a day in unsafe conditions or starving, you can bet they're gonna accept them working. If you think paying workers barely subsistence wages isn't making them victims, then I pity you.
Pbirv 2 years ago
When leftists think they can micromanage people's lives for them, it results in less opportunity, not more. Now you may think that you have all the answers for how someone living in poverty should live HIS life, or how an employer should run HIS company, but you do not have the right to impose arbitrary rules on people in another nation, just because we have a more prosperous economy than they have. Comparing our economy to an undeveloped economy, or today's economy to the past is erroneous.
herbs814 2 years ago
So preventing and cleaning up pollution, requiring workplace safety measures, workmen's comp for those injured on the job, maternity leave, the 40 hour workweek, etc, are all unjust government intrusion? Yeah, God forbid that those poor business owners have to provide a safe work environment that doesn't pollute the air or water around it. After all, free citizens have an inalienable right to be maimed or killed at work without any comp and breathe toxic air and drink polluted water. Right?
Pbirv 2 years ago
All could have and would have been developed without government intrusion. Technology, production, competition, and capitalism provide these improvements in our standard of living... and government and unions fraudulently claim the credit. There is no need for intrusive legislation and regulation to force the process that competition and litigation could provide without such force.
herbs814 2 years ago
You're pretty much wrong, because providing and maintaining safety and anti-pollution measures would cut into a company's bottom line, and most companies aren't gonna pay for anything that cuts into their bottom line unless they're required to. They sure don't provide or maintain them in China- pollution near factories and mines is a huge problem over there because what few anti-pollution laws they have aren't really enforced. Same in many other countries we've sent our jobs to.
Pbirv 2 years ago
companies will improve pollution controls for community goodwill and public relations... or to reduce their liability... and if they don't litigation can remedy the situation. Regulation treats employers as guilty until proven innocent -- completely antithetical to our Bill of Rights and the foundation of our justice system.
herbs814 2 years ago
Litigation alone without laws to back it up isn't gonna do jack shit, because companies can and will get the best lawyers money can buy to finagle their way out of it.
Pbirv 2 years ago
The reason companies don't make such upgrades in China is because they are protected by the government. The government looks the other way and suppresses community dissent that could otherwise reform the company's priorities and practices. It is the government condoning pollution that allows China's pollution... just like it was the Democrats condoning fraudulent accounting at FannieMae and FreddieMac that brought down our financial markets.
herbs814 2 years ago
What you're proposing would inevitably create the same effect here.
Pbirv 2 years ago
So unions denied children the right to work, just like they want to deny adults the right to work (unless they pay tribute to union slavemasters). Oh, yeah, I'm sure glad we have unions to take away our rights.
herbs814 2 years ago
Kids should be in school, not working full time. The fact that kids working aren't getting an education makes it so much easier for unscrupulous employers to take unfair advantage of them because those kids can't read and usually can't count.
Pbirv 2 years ago
Children should help their families prosper. That means education if the parents have the resources to give them an education. That means employment if the parents don't earn enough to support the family. Working to support the family was the best choice for many. Who are you to deny them their first employment experience, first chance to earn job skills, and chance to help support the family if needed?
herbs814 2 years ago
So education should be limited to only those whose parents have the resources to afford it? Yeah, because mass illiteracy is such a wonderful thing. Right? Illiterate, uneducated people are easier to exploit than those who've had an education.
I have nothing against working to support the family, but having kids who are barely out of their diapers and are too young to understand what's going on is at the very least, highly unethical.
Pbirv 2 years ago
Your hyperbole is disgraceful. "Child labor" meant teenagers, pre-teens at most. These same children would otherwise be working family farms. "child labor" factories offer better standard of living and more opportunity than these families would otherwise have.
herbs814 2 years ago
Nope. Many of those kids were as young as 3 or 5.
Pbirv 2 years ago
Power-hungry politicians and whining limousine liberals will always find some excuse for more regulation. It doesn't matter how virtuously businesses are run, leftists always find an excuse to take away the rights of free people.
herbs814 2 years ago
"Power-hungry politicians"? I bet you didn't have any problem with Bush and Cheney treating the Constitution as a "goddamn piece of paper".
Pbirv 2 years ago
You seem to think that we wouldn't need/have schools if the government didn't provide them. Of course we would. There would be a burgeoning demand for them :P In fact, I'd consider buying one of the former govt schools and running it myself, as a business. It'd be the best education around, and believe me, my local kids aren't the richest, so I clearly wouldn't be charging more than their parents could afford once they had their tax money back.
gwydion75 2 years ago
Secondly, if you can't afford to provide for your kids (including education), you should not have them. Its not only irresponsible, its immoral, not only to your children, but to your fellow equal citizens who now have to pick up where you've failed.
gwydion75 2 years ago
There will always be irresponsible parents, but should their kids be required to suffer for it? Be denied food, education, because their parents had them when they couldn't afford them? It's funny how a lot of the people who want to get rid of public schools and our safety net also want to ban abortion. Get rid of abortion and you'll have a lot more kids needing those services and programs. But I guess we really need to keep our prisons filled, don't we?
Pbirv 2 years ago
Further, many parents started families when they had good paying jobs and could provide for their kids. Then their jobs got eliminated, shipped overseas, or given to foreign guest workers willing to do those jobs for a fraction of what Americans can afford to live on, and thus the parents either ended up unemployed or having to settle for far lower paying jobs, usually at fast food or retail type places that pay barely enough to keep a roof over their heads and food on the table.
Pbirv 2 years ago
Might want to get ahold of inflation then, so that those jobs pay wages that can actually afford goods and services.
Further, criminal neglect of children is punishable by law. It would be so under the public or private school system. I'll ignore your abortion statement, since it was just meant to instigate the religious-right.
The problems you're trying to fix with government, are created BY government. High prices, unattainable education, jobs going overseas, high cost of living...
gwydion75 2 years ago
We tried laissez-faire once and had child labor, 12-19 hour workdays in unsafe conditions with few/no safety measures for wages barely enough to afford a cramped tenement apartment that may or may not have had running water- those who were hurt on the job were "compensated" by being fired and replaced with an uninjured worker, polluted air and water, only wealthier families being able to afford an education for their kids- many children of factory/mill/mine workers never got to go to school.
Pbirv 2 years ago
Now political Schiff is speaking my language``` economics with sense`
brodudemonkey 2 years ago 2
"Banckrupt" ...was gibt?
ChanceVoyager 2 years ago
I need to start rating a bunch of videos with 4 stars instead of 5 so I can rate really good videos like this one higher.
spikeslawson 2 years ago
is there a cap in the number of 5 stars you can rate?
Entropy137 2 years ago
No, but there are a lot of good videos and a few that are GREAT. I tend to give out the 5 star ratings and feel like it's cheap to hit a great one with the same rating.
spikeslawson 2 years ago
after what the Oligarchy did to the American People, face it we'll have to go through some socialism until people can trust business and government again.
marniespeaks 2 years ago
People still trust business, I mean as much as they always did. It's the businesses with govt funding you have to watch out for. And no way do we need socialism. We need to do what our founding fathers did and stand up to the govt and say nor more. By force if we have to. By the people for the people, right? Last time I checked anyways.
bigG010 2 years ago
yeah, good luck with that. Won't happen the government has more and bigger guns than you do.
Even Peter' s own father was convicted and not allowed to present his case.
750 billion to the banks and Americans didn't even bother to step outside. There will be only two classes in the end, just like China.
marniespeaks 2 years ago 2
Having more and bigger guns doesn't guarantee victory. Look at what the Iraqi insurgents have been able to do with little more than old AK's and homemade explosives.
Pbirv 2 years ago
I'll give you this, outside of China, historically, in the end the millitary always side with the people.
marniespeaks 2 years ago
Mortgages without houses. Degrees without knowledge.
Rage.
barrywinehousexp 2 years ago 3
Peter schiff is always on point!
AFRIKTODAY 2 years ago 2
Come on, education is not business.
DimitriLozovoy 2 years ago
Well if you charge someone to teach them something...then yes it is. Do you mean that it shouldn't be a business? That everyone should teach people for free?
Bowser2398 2 years ago
Education is for the good of the people, to open them up, to maximize their potential, to inspire them. Universities should do research, and not always on what will make the most money and raise shareholder value. Thinking of it as strictly business is wrong.
DimitriLozovoy 2 years ago 2
The schools themselves are treating it as a business!!! Why is it that the salesman is always accusing the customer of being overly concerned with the price but the salesman never wants to lower his commission?
AristophanesNow 2 years ago
Making money from educating people is not wrong. There's nothing immoral about it. If they don't think of it as a business they will go bankrupt and there won't be any university outside of charity donations. The problem is that they're too expensive and bloated because of gov't subsidies- and removing those would lower the cost of tuition so students can finally afford it. Not only that but making cuts will help Universities focus on what they're best at- and provide students with the best edu.
Bowser2398 2 years ago 3
Of course it is. Don't kid yourself. I work at a private school.
gwydion75 2 years ago 2
Well, if education is business, then we might as well get rid of humanities, arts & music education. Who needs it when it can't make money, right?
DimitriLozovoy 2 years ago
You missed the point.
CliveSinclairZX 2 years ago
Exactly- Universities have become huge and bloated with nonsense courses they weren't originally intended for. They need to make cuts so tuition can come down and people can afford to go to college without going into massive debt
Bowser2398 2 years ago
For sure, there are classes that are such a fluff especially on a Bach. level, and it even has cripted up into Master's...
vorotnikova 2 years ago
Are you implying that you'd pay money to send your kid to a school without humanities, arts and music? I wouldn't. How absurd. In a free market educational system, demand by the consumer will force the inclusion of fields of education presently discarded by wasteful government bureaucrat. The only way a private school in a free market system does away with humanities, arts & music is if the consumer continues to do business with that school.
gwydion75 2 years ago 2
The humanities, arts and music departments don't make any money. They barely survive. As strategic business units (SBU's) in a corporation they would do very poorly.
DimitriLozovoy 2 years ago
Dimitril- but God forbid they should cut the all-important sports programs. Yeah, who needs arts, music, theatre, or other humanities when all we need is football, baseball, and basketball?
Pbirv 2 years ago
it is when you come outta school owing youre lender 80k+ and you havent found a job, even with the 1-2 year deferrements its still not guarunteed youre gonna find a job, how many students actually find a career they want to pursue, my brother went to collge and medical school and graduated with 100k of debt on his hands and he still hasnt found a steady paying job, and i havent even talked about the outrageous interests rates they throw on top of that
pimpinkin87 2 years ago 3
Secondly, its not only about profit or commission necessarily. There are plenty of non-profit private schools who operate their school as a business. Still concerned with the bottom line and pleasing their consumers, they will continue to make decisions for their school that benefit their customers and its own health and longevity. Government organizations do not need to worry about health or longevity. They are ensured it by their very nature. Why compete when you don't have to.
gwydion75 2 years ago
WAKE UP PEOPLE!!
campeona5 2 years ago 2
The government is an expert at breaking your leg and then handing you a crutch and saying, "See without me, you couldn't walk." What percent of federal government activities IS NOT characterized by that statement? I'd say an extremely low percentage.
constitutionalistftw 2 years ago 9
Haha you got me laughing with the first line. That's good. You know who else does this? racketeers and mafiosos, you pay them "protection" money to protect yourself from them. Classic!
linnx88 2 years ago 2
The John Galt Solution is the only solution!
Stop funding and forging your own chains and shackles!
lewrockwelldotcom 2 years ago
In a lot of cases education has become a form of corporate welfare. In the past the company had to pay to train you. Now you have to pay to get trained with no guarentee of employment. Post H.S. education is over-rated and unneccesary for most people. If business needs trained employees, let them train them at their own expense, not mine.
mwildish 2 years ago 3
Pretty much any job paying significantly above minimum wage requires some kind of post high school education. Otherwise the best one can usually look forward to is a dead end job at some place like McDonald's or WalMart.
Pbirv 2 years ago
It is not that jobs do not require training, they often do. The problem is that we are expected to get that training at our own expense with no offer of employment. We need to go to a college at great expense to maybe get a job. The companies are using a college education (subsidized by us or the gov.) to get free training for employees without any commitment. If companies had to pay for training they would be less willing to hire and dump employees. They would run themselves better.
mwildish 2 years ago 2
This point of view doesn't make sense to some people, but the point is.....
lots of kids graduate college when they should be just going into the workforce. The individual would actually be better off attending a 2 year university or no post high school education at all.
FCmagic01 2 years ago
"60 Minutes" did a segment on 2 year colleges a couple years ago. Basically the job placement rates at those schools were lies. Most of their grads ended up working in minimum wage fast food or retail jobs- basically the same jobs they could get with no more than a high school education.
Pbirv 2 years ago
Pretty much any jobs paying significantly above minimum wage requiressome kind of post secondary education. Otherwise, the best one can usually look forward to is some dead end job at a "hamburger manufacturing facility" and/or at WalMart.
Pbirv 2 years ago
And there would be more jobs for those without post-secondary education if there was no arbitrary law setting an arbitrary "minimum" wage.
herbs814 2 years ago
If we got rid of minimum wage, what would keep an unscrupulous employer from dropping their employee's pay down to less than $1 a day? Once someone does that, their competitors will end up having to follow suit and we'll end up aggravating the race to the bottom we're already in. Workers will end up having to share a 1 bedroom apartment or trailer with 10-30 other people or sleeping on the business floor or in company dorms with no running water like they do in China.
Pbirv 2 years ago
Competition from other employers keeps wages up to levels that are fair and sustainable. Businesses are more to be trusted to set wages than government is to be trusted to do anything.
herbs814 2 years ago
That only works when there's more jobs than there are workers available for them. It's certainly not the case when an employer can count on dozens, if not hundreds or even thousands of applicants for each opening. That's one reason many businesses have had such a massive hard-on for illegal immigrants, because they'll gladly work for less than $5 an hour in any conditions, no matter how unsafe they may be.
Pbirv 2 years ago
And there would be more jobs if there was less government stealing from the people who create jobs. Government and coercive collective bargaining is what discourages job creation.
herbs814 2 years ago
Workers end up with less when government taxes and forced union dues steal their wages. Workers have more to fear from government and from unions than they do from management.
herbs814 2 years ago
Taxes are simply the price for living in a civilized society. I'm sure you want to breathe clean air, have safe water, adequate police protection, garbage pickup, see the streets maintained and potholes filled, etc. All those cost money, and of course taxes raise that money. If you don't wanna pay union dues, you can get a crap wage non-union job at some place like McDonald's or WalMart. Pretty much all the benefits that workers enjoy were fought for by the unions.
Pbirv 2 years ago
Taxes are much too high and government insists on doing way too much. Taxes and govt spending need to be slashed by 75% or more. Government needs to return freedom to the people and treat people like adults.
Having a non-union job is worth it. You don't have to suffer the endless hatred and propaganda of brainwashed union drones. Just protect the right of workers to a secret ballot, without being intimidated and tricked by union thugs.
herbs814 2 years ago
Taxes are simply a way to use force against people. Income taxes are particularly stupid because they punish people for being productive. Laws against freedom to work (including "minimum wage" and "child labor" and "card check") are counterproductive because they mean less jobs are created, less goods and services are provided, standard of living falls, and less tax revenues.
herbs814 2 years ago
Don't wanna pay taxes? OK, You and your buddies can have massive Tea Partys down at the river bank, roast dogs, pass the homie jug, and kick ass!!! A real honest to goodness tent city of rugged individuals hoarding their goods & refusing to share. You can grow potatoes next to your tent, and practice a free market exercise of trading them for carrots.
CONTINUED ON NEXT POST
Pbirv 2 years ago
CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST
At last you will have your utopia! No taxes!! No roads. No sewer. No water. "No phone, no lights, no motor car, not a single luxury, like Robinson Crusoe, it's primitive as can be". Just you & tent city. You do remember how to make coffee over the fire right? Cause no electricity to run the coffee pot. Up at the break of a dewy cold morning, chopping wood for that fire.
Pbirv 2 years ago
Improvements to standard of living come from business, not from taxes. Less taxes means a better quality of life with more luxuries, not fewer. Less government means more advancement in standard of living. Less government means cheaper and more plentiful electricity. less government means cars are more affordable. Amenities become more affordable and more accessible without government interference.
herbs814 2 years ago
Providing energy has been profitable since the beginning of time. You don't need the state to provide it. Even with infrastructure costs. You live in a fantasy land to believe that without the government there would be no services. The demand would create a market rate for us to purchase those goods and services. The demand would create the jobs necessary, not the state.
gwydion75 2 years ago
What causes tent cities? High taxes and burdensome regulations on employers.
What happens when you cut taxes? You get more jobs; your money buys more of what you choose; and standards of living improve.
herbs814 2 years ago
Bush cut taxes and our standard of living went down the crapper.
Pbirv 2 years ago
Wrong. When Bush cut taxes, our standard of living went up. When Demoncrats took power and signaled they would reimpose higher taxes, our standard of living fell.
herbs814 2 years ago
Under Bush, our only real job growth was in non-tradeable domestic services that don't create wealth. Of course this has been going on since Reagan, but the gutting of our manufacturing and high tech industries was basically on steroids on the Chimp's watch. Only the very wealthy really benefitted from Bush's tax cuts. For everyone else, it was kinda like taking out a loan for a weekend in Las Vegas. That may've been fun, but you're gonna end up paying for it.
Pbirv 2 years ago
By not supporting the extension of Bush's tax cuts, the Democrats are raising taxes on the 10% bracket by 50% percent, yet raising the taxes on the 25% bracket by only 12%, on the 28% bracket by 10%, on the 33% bracket by 9%, and on the 35% bracket by only 13%.
DEMOCRAT TAX HIKES GOUGE THE POOR.
TAX CUTS HELP THE POOR THE MOST.
herbs814 2 years ago
There's no minimum wage in Mexico, China, or Thailand. Look how well that's turned out for their workers.
Pbirv 2 years ago
Mexico, China, and Thailand are creating jobs while the artificial, arbitrary wage floors in America are causing us to lose jobs. So, letting employers rather than government set wages is working much better. They actually have more jobs.
herbs814 2 years ago
So you would have no problem with workers being paid barely enough to eat and having to sleep on the shop floor or in a company dorm with no running water or in a cardboard or tin shack or share a 1 bedroom apartment or trailer with 10-30 other people, with some people no doubt sleeping in the kitchen or the bathroom?
Because indentured servitude is such a wonderful thing, right?
Pbirv 2 years ago
We're indentured servants now :P What other way can you describe being forced to pay a tax to be able to live and produce? You're far too dramatic, get some grounding and educate yourself.
gwydion75 2 years ago
Taxes are simply the price for living in civilized society. Maybe, for example, you'd rather have dirt roads or toll booths every other mile instead of paying a tax for paved highways?
Pbirv 2 years ago