Word games

10 Phrases Progressives Need To Ditch (And What We Can Say Instead)

Let's start with the first term "progressives" need to ditch: "progressives."  You're liberals.  You're not different just because you call yourself something different.  Progressive implies that you're forward-looking.  You're not.  You just think you are, perhaps because you have fooled yourselves by calling yourselves "progressives."

Now that I got that out of the way, let's look at what these "progressives" think they need to reword.

(1). Big Business: That's what it is.  But the "progressive" author of the article thinks we should call it "unelected government."  Um, no.  If big business is in fact some sort of government, it is definitely not unelected.  Every dollar that gets spent at Walmart, for example, is a vote for Walmart and its corporate interests.  If you have ever spent a dollar at Walmart, you have, in effect, elected them.  If you don't like what Walmart stands for, then shop elsewhere.  And what about government?  If  corporations are really that powerful, then why does the U.S. have such a high corporate tax rate?  It seems to me that if corporations had so much political pull that we could actually consider them government, the first thing that would be eliminated is corporate taxes.  Only, let's not call them what they aren't.  Is Walmart big?  Yes.  Is Walmart a business?  Yes.  Therefore, Walmart is "big business."  On the other hand, is Walmart unelected?  No.  Is Walmart government?  No.  Therefore, Walmart is not "unelected government."

Now, get over the idea that "we are powerless to hold [corporations] accountable."  Take action and stop spending money there.  In other words, be progressive.


(2). Entitlements: Here, the author is just concerned about the connotation of the word "entitlement."  The meaning is simple, though.  Entitlements are payments that an individual is entitled to by law.  How it sounds to "progressives" doesn't much matter.  It is what it is.

(3). Free Market Capitalism: Not many people believe that our economy can be characterized as "free market capitalism."  It clearly isn't.  The author makes the claim that "free market capitalism is a 20th-century utopian ideal that has amply been proven an unworkable failure, and damaging to society."  Number one, I don't think it has ever been proven "an unworkable failure," although I have my doubts that people can live up to the standard of ethics required to make it workable.  The failures might actually have more to do with government intervention in the economy, rather than an outright failure of "free market capitalism."  Suffice it to say that if one is referring to any economy in the world today, then, yes, we shouldn't call it "free market capitalism."  It doesn't exist.  There is no need to come up with a different name for it.

(4). Government Spending: Sigh.  Is the government spending?  Yes.  Only "progressives" want to call it "investing in America."  "They invest in education and infrastructure that wouldn’t prove profitable for businesses, but which still benefit society in the long-run."  Progressives like to say this kind of thing as if it's a self-evident, known fact.  The fact is that government "investment" in education has not resulted in any long-run benefit to society.  Now, it's more like a runaway freight train, devaluing the education that people used to work for; now diplomas are handed out for showing up, and there doesn't appear to be any way to stop it.  Well, not without some pain.  So... everybody gets one.  Everybody wins a prize.  We're all entitled.  And this is where the term entitled actually deserves a negative connotation.  The author may have a point mentioning infrastructure, but maybe that's only an illusion.  We don't pay for roads and bridges and other types of infrastructure directly, so we don't know the actual cost.  If we did, we might decide we don't need as much as we think we do now.  Something not mentioned by the author is police and fire departments.  Those, I think, are better left in the hands of government.  But I wouldn't call those expenses investments either.  So, yeah, "government spending" should just be called government spending.  Let's not call it something different in order to make it more palatable.

(5). Gun Control: Again, the author doesn't like the sound of this term.  "That sounds like you want to control people..."  Um, that is exactly what is meant by gun control.  "It sounds so nice, non-coercive, and reasonable."  Yeah, and one thing's for sure.  We don't want it to sound anything like what it is.  It isn't a matter of wanting safety; it's a matter of controlling.  In case the author hasn't noticed, our government is big on control.  Much of what our government does is, in fact, an attempt to control individuals.  Of course, I think that the excessive control that the government tries to put on us contributes to much of the irrational behavior people exhibit.  Gun control is, again, a matter of control.  The government does want to control who has guns; they want to control how many and what kind of guns.  To call it "gun safety" makes it sound like a class you take to learn how to handle a gun.  It's more than that.

(6). Illegal Aliens: Are they in the country illegally?  Yes.  Are they aliens?  Yes.  But, let's not call them that because, again, we don't like the sound of it.  Here, the author wants us to believe that illegal aliens are only here because big business wants them here.  Well, I guess if you're willing to give big business that much power, maybe they are unelected government.  So, let's call them "undocumented citizens."  They are undocumented, and "undocumented" sounds way smarter than "illegal."  Because it's a longer, bigger word.  You just can't argue with someone when they have a really big vocabulary.  But are they citizens?  Nope.  Apparently, progressives want to try to slip that word in right after the big, fancy word "undocumented."  Maybe nobody will notice.

(7). Pro-life: Here, I'll have to agree with the "progressive" author.  Once a child is born, conservatives generally don't care much about the child's life.  But being against unrestrained abortion doesn't have to be called "anti-choice" either.  Who ever decided that making a bad choice (having unprotected sex) should then entitle a person to make another, in my opinion, bad choice?  And if "progressives" want to make an argument that even with protected sex sometimes women get pregnant... um, that's why they invented abstinence.  Having sex is not a right.  It is a responsibility, and one that shouldn't be taken so lightly as these "progressives" seem to take it.  There's an old saying: "Don't do the crime if you can't do the time."  Grow up and accept responsibility for your actions instead of thinking that it's okay to just throw a fetus in the garbage because you have the right to decide that.

(8). Right-to-work: I don't like unions.  I've never joined a union.  Unions have too much power.  Enough so that they can actually force an employer out of business.  Perhaps I have benefited from unions.  There was a time when unions served a purpose.  And they may again.  It's unfortunate that people need to have this sort of protection just to work and be paid a reasonable wage.  It's unfortunate that unions will push for more than a reasonable wage in order to be able to collect more in dues.  It's unfortunate that people are generally greedy.  "...union shops pay better wages to their employees..."  Maybe.  But at what cost?  How many jobs end up lost because some businesses can't pay union wages?  The term "right-to-work" may not be exactly right, but there's no need to try to spread the lie that unions are only good.  They're greedy just like the rest of us.

(9). The Environment: Huh?  What's not to like about "the environment?"  The author would prefer we referred to the environment as "shared resources."  I, for one, personally loathe the overuse of the word "share."  The term "shared resources" makes the environment sound like an ice cream cone that you share with a friend.  No, it's more important than that.  It isn't something that we just let each other use until it's all gone.

(10). Welfare: 'When conservatives talk about “welfare,” they make it sound like this pit people wallow in forever, rather than a source of help that’s available when we need it – and that we pay for through our taxes.'  In some cases, it IS a pit people wallow in forever.  Yes, we pay for it through our taxes.  Some people don't, though.  Some people just collect.  Still, there is something to be said for the author's alternative term "social safety net."  If people actually acted as if it were just that simply because of the name change, then I'm all for it.  Unfortunately, it often doesn't work that way.  And there might even be an advantage to the negative connotation of the term "welfare."  Maybe people are less inclined to depend on "welfare" than on a "social safety net."  Then again, maybe it wouldn't make a difference.

Instead of playing word games, "progressives" should try to live up to their self-styled label.  If not, why not just call yourself a liberal?  That way, we all know what you mean.

Quote

Strike at a great man, and you will not miss.  

Sophocles

How to fix the gap

I’ve written about this before, but I thought I’d go a little more in depth on the subject. One way of understanding unemployment is by analyzing the difference between potential GDP and real GDP, GDP being the value of goods and services produced in our economy. When real GDP falls below potential GDP, we have unemployment. Why? Because potential GDP is the theoretical amount that could be produced if we had full employment. So it’s really in the definition. The picture here shows what a graph of real GDP versus potential GDP looks like now.

Looking at the picture, we can see that it’s really a simple matter of either raising real GDP faster than potential GDP, or lowering potential GDP, or a combination of both. Close the gap, and unemployment will decrease.

Only it’s not so easy to raise real GDP, except, perhaps, through government spending, which is one of the things the current government is doing. That’s what stimulus spending is supposed to do. In this way, we increase employment, which raises GDP, and makes the gap smaller. Only, the gap isn’t getting very much smaller, and unemployment remains high.

So, the other option is to make potential GDP decline. That’s easy, but the government doesn’t actually want to do that, or at least doesn’t want to say it wants to do that. In fact, the government is doing things that seem intended to keep potential GDP rising. Now, I’m not saying that increasing potential GDP is a bad thing; in fact, it's good. But, I think this demonstrates how government should really just butt out. The idea behind a market economy is that things eventually work out by themselves. But when the government intervenes, unintended results abound.

For example, the government is providing huge subsidies for education. PELL grants, subsidized student loans, and tax credits are some of the federal programs. These things raise potential GDP by increasing “human capital.” Theoretically, the more college graduates there are, the more human capital there is, and the higher potential GDP becomes.  But is it really working out that way?

I’ve written before about how government subsidies for education are resulting in a devaluation of education. Basically, by declaring that everyone has a “right” to higher education, and ensuring that no one misses out due to lack of money, our education system is busily herding people through the system, keeping failures to a minimum, and lowering the value of getting that education. A college diploma is quickly becoming a piece of paper that says “I was there,” and not much else.

So, if government action is devaluing higher education, then we can say that soon enough higher education will be mostly worthless. Potential GDP won’t be positively impacted by the higher number of college graduates, and the recessionary gap will narrow. The cost of this narrowing, though, is enormous. We, as taxpayers, are spending billions to keep up the charade.

As if the devaluing of education isn’t enough, long-term unemployment also serves to decrease the recessionary gap. The longer people are unemployed, the more their skills tend to atrophy. Most people don’t sit around studying, working to keep their skills sharpened, and waiting for the day that they’ll actually get to use those skills again. So, long-term unemployment serves to lower potential GDP, resulting, again, in a narrowing of the recessionary gap. Yay!

What else can the government do to close the recessionary gap? Oh yeah. They can keep signing free trade agreements. That will surely help, because then we’ll keep exporting our capital to increase productivity in countries where labor is cheaper than it is here. If we export our capital, it isn’t available for use here, resulting in a decline in potential GDP, and another narrowing of the recessionary gap. Go us!

In the end, it’s going to cost us trillions, and take an inordinately long time to close the recessionary gap in the U.S. if we continue to follow the current “plan.” In the meantime, there’s going to be a lot of unnecessary pain, and it will take years, even decades, to pay for all this foolishness. And we’ll have the pleasure of watching while we become the new third world country.  And it will be as if we never spent that money.

We’re already sliding compared to other countries in many areas, like education. The answer to our problems is not to get more people to graduate with college degrees; we need to improve on the quality of our graduates. We need to recognize that there is no real “free trade” in this world. Free trade doesn’t exist when currency manipulation is the norm. Being able to buy cheap foreign goods doesn’t do us any good when we’re unemployed.

So, yeah. The government needs to stop with the heavy subsidization of education. They need to stop looking for the next new source of cheap imports. Otherwise, we’ll become a nation of college graduates, flipping burgers at McDonalds, and barely skilled enough to tie our own shoes. But, we’ll all be employed.

Quote

Where it is a duty to worship the sun, it is pretty sure to be a crime to examine the laws of heat.

John Morley

Quote

The world is a comedy to those that think; a tragedy to those that feel.

 Horace Walpole

Let's put on our thinking caps

Police Say They Found Testosterone at Home of Pistorius

Yeah, I don't really care so much about whether the police found testosterone or not.  The more interesting thing is that this guy shot a gun through a closed door because he heard something, even though someone else lived in the same house as him.  I don't know whether there was premeditation or not, and I'm not going to pass judgment on that, or even whether he should be charged with murder.  Instead, I'm going to assume he's telling the truth.

Apparently, he thought his girlfriend was asleep.  I guess it didn't occur to him to check.  This is what I call acting on "gut instinct," or "feelings," or "intuition."  Whatever you want to call it.  Really, if you're going to start shooting a gun, perhaps you should try a little rational thought first, unless, of course, you're standing face to face with an armed intruder.  Then, go with your feelings.   Unfortunately, though, more and more people tend to go with their feelings about things and little effort is put into any kind of rational thought.  This is a prime example of the importance of rational thought to our society; it's another example of why people need to forget about their biases, forget about what they think they know, and start actually thinking.

Business as usual

Sequester Cuts Will Not Cause The Sky To Fall On March 1 

But what actually happens on March 1?

"Nothing. Nothing happens," said a senior congressional aide who is keeping a close eye on the looming budget cuts.

In other words, on March 1, it will be business as usual for our government.  Nothing happens.

Quote

All art is bad, but modern art is the worst.

Joyce Cary

Quote

Economists are about as useful as astrologers in predicting the future (and, like astrologers, they never let failure on one occasion diminish certitude on the next).

Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.

Lawsuit over grade

Megan Thode, Lehigh University Grad, Files $1.3 Million Lawsuit Over C+ Grade 

One thing I know is that these days, if you get a C+ in a class, you probably really deserved an F.  "I'm entitled."

Quote

History repeats itself, but in such cunning disguise that we never detect the resemblance until the damage is done.

Sydney J. Harris

Let's at least try to think

I've written before about how people need to forget about their ideologies and try thinking rationally instead.  It hasn't made much difference in the world.  But, here's an article that appears to back up what I'm saying.


The Surprising Brain Differences Between Democrats and Republicans

I know, it's Mother Jones.  Probably leftist propaganda of some sort or other.  I thought it would be.  I thought the article would end by telling me how conservatives regularly don't think while liberals do.  It didn't say that, though.

"We need a much broader and more thoughtful discussion about what it means if political ideology turns out to be nothing like what we actually thought it was. Scientists working in this new field tend towards the conclusion that the new research should make us more tolerant, not less, of political difference—not to mention a whole lot more humble about our own deeply held beliefs."

I disagree a little bit with this ending comment in the article.  I don't think we need to be more tolerant, I think we need to question "our own deeply held beliefs."  The meaning of this to me is that our ideologies cause us to make decisions based on fear or emotion, when we should be using rational thought, i.e. thought free from fear or emotion, to make decisions.  Of course, then we can read the comments and realize that nobody thinks the article applies to them, which is always good for a laugh at both Democrats and Republicans.

On rationalism

I’m a little surprised that there wasn’t at least some kind of whining about yesterday’s post, wherein I said something about raising the minimum wage being a good idea given the dysfunctional economy we live in.  I didn’t go much into the reasoning behind it, other than to say that employers tend to not recognize the contributions of their employees adequately.  But, there’s more to it than that.

Ayn Rand had this to say about Capitalism:

“Since knowledge, thinking, and rational action are properties of the individual, since the choice to exercise his rational faculty or not depends on the individual, man’s survival requires that those who think be free of the interference of those who don’t. Since men are neither omniscient nor infallible, they must be free to agree or disagree, to cooperate or to pursue their own independent course, each according to his own rational judgment. Freedom is the fundamental requirement of man’s mind.”

Unfortunately for us, we live in a world where few actually understand how to think, and those that do are subject to the whims of the majority who don’t.  Worse, those that don’t think rationally believe they do.  In the case of employers, it goes like this:  I pay my workers $X.  I make $Y in profits.  If I pay my workers $X+10, then I make $Y-10 profit.  And that’s as far as it goes.  This thinking was demonstrated by the reaction of McDonald’s stock price, which was likely at least in part due to the President’s comments in the State of the Union address.

Only, rational thought requires employers to look beyond this overly simplistic equation.  This is especially true of large employers, like Walmart.  In some areas, at least, Walmart is a big enough employer that their actions can have a substantial effect on the local economy.  If they pay their workers more, then the local economy is better off.  Their employees have more money to spend, and some of that might actually be spent at Walmart.  Turnover rates would be lower.  Taxes could be lowered in part because of less need for government assistance.

It’s true that a lot of people might just take the extra pay and think of it as some sort of entitlement and nothing would change at all, at least for them.  But higher pay based on performance would likely attract somewhat more worthy individuals, and convince them to stay longer.  Lower turnover results in lower costs.  Higher pay results in lower “welfare” payments.  Lower welfare payments result in lower taxes.

At least, that’s the way it should work, if we lived in a society where rational thought was something that happened on a regular basis.  Unfortunately, that isn’t reality.  The propensity for everyone to label first themselves, and then everyone else is, I think, an example of how nobody wants to think any more.  It makes it easy because we can just apply whatever our ideology is to whatever the problem is and bang, we think we have a solution.  And everyone else is stupid because their ideology is so obviously flawed.

But our world is complex.  In fact, it is so complex that simple ideologies don’t work.  Objectivism doesn’t actually work in the real world because it requires that people think rationally; that they deal with each other fairly; that they treat each other with respect simply because we are all human beings.  And that doesn’t happen.  And until it does, then I say, “Yeah.  Raise the minimum wage.”

Stupid or Troll?

I've been thinking about starting a new feature on this blog titled, well, it's titled the same as this post, "Stupid or Troll?".  I think it will explain itself.

Tonight, a college kid was talking about something.  I really have no idea what because, well, I do my best to ignore most of what he says.  But, he was talking about some distance and said "Like about 30 to 40 meters," which caught my attention because I had no idea why he might be talking in metric terms.  Then he said, "Oh wait.  I was thinking in yards, so about 50 meters."  So, I ask.  Stupid or troll?  Or, is there actually nothing at all wrong with this?  If the latter is the case, someone explain it to me. 

Quote

Few of us can stand prosperity.  Another man's, that is.

Mark Twain

It's not bad if I do it!

Obama State of the Union lands with a thud in Congress

There's a big surprise.  Of course, this article quotes a number of Republicans doing exactly what they accuse Obama of doing.  Not that I'm a big Obama fan.  I just find it fascinating that people all over see nothing wrong when they do a thing, but if someone else does the same thing, it's "another retread of lip service and liberalism," while their own comments are another retread of lip service and conservatism.  Both sides are guilty of the same thing.

McConnell and House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) also dismissed Obama’s call to increase the minimum wage to $9 an hour. It’s something Obama said was necessary given that someone working full time at $7.25 an hour, the current minimum wage, would only make $14,500 a year. The minimum wage has been flat since 2009.

If this weren't such a dysfunctional economy, I would agree with Republicans, and in fact would eliminate the minimum wage altogether.  However, this IS a dysfunctional economy, employers don't recognize the contributions of their employees,  employers don't recognize the fact that if they paid their employees better, employee satisfaction would increase, turnover would decrease, welfare payments would drop, and taxes could be decreased.  This is the "trickle-down" theory that conservatives love so much, but in reverse.  Apparently, though, conservatives don't really want to test that theory; instead, they insist that poorer people should just accept what hasn't worked in the past on faith, that this time it will be different.  In the meantime, the rich are happy to reap the profits that they earn, paid for in part by entitlement benefits, but, not surprisingly, they don't want to pay for those entitlement programs.

Of course, I'm beginning to think that rich folks, and perhaps conservatives in general, actually like high unemployment.  Why?  Because high unemployment rates might actually help lower the turnover rate, thus lowering the costs of hiring and training new people.

Quote

We're all getting lashed to the great wheel of uniformity.

Robert James Waller

Quote

He who conceals his disease cannot expect to be cured.

Ethiopian Proverb

Quote

Every actual State is corrupt.  Good men must not obey laws too well.


Emerson

Yeah, blame it on the boomers.

Baby Boomers: It's All Your Fault

Yeah, don't I know it.  Of course, that's because boomers belong to what is probably the last generation to accept personal responsibility for their own outcomes.  Might as well take responsibility for every other generations lousy outcomes while we're at it.

I'm a boomer, I guess.  At least, I was born during the right time frame.  I never really thought of myself as a boomer, but the insistence of younger people referring to me in that terminology is fine, if it makes them feel better.  While I'm at it, I'm a bit overweight (fat), and apparently older members of my own generation don't think I have much of value to offer society, and according to at least some Gen Xers, I probably don't, so, yeah, I'm incompetent.  A fat, incompetent boomer.

 But, back to the previously linked article.  It starts out explaining how big of a cohort the baby boom generation is.  Okay, I'll take responsibility for that too.  I at least realize that it isn't my kids fault, and really, I don't think it's the result of stupidity on my parents part either.  It happened, and if it makes you young folk feel better, I'll take responsibility; it's all my fault.  It has to be somebody's fault, doesn't it?

As the boomers hit their peak spending and borrowing years in the late 1990s and 2000s, they splurged on second homes, SUVs, and went crazy on credit.

 Hm.  Around that time, I was busy telling people, mostly people younger than me, to reconsider how much they could afford to spend on a house.  But what did I know?  This was clearly different than the housing bubble I had lived through in the late 70s in Great Falls, MT.  That was just a local phenomenon, not national like in the early 2000s.  Besides, I'm sure that housing bubble was also my generation's fault anyway.

In fact, I'm sure ALL of the previous bubbles and collapses in the American economy were the baby boomers' fault.  Great Depression? Sure.  Panic of 1907?  You bet.  Feel better?

Good.  Now that we got the blame game out of the way, all I want to know is what are we going to do about it?  Oh, wait.  I shouldn't have said "we."  Cuz, you know, boomers can't do anything right.  So, Gen X, what will YOU do about it?  Oh, wait.  I already know.  Nothing, cuz it's NOT YOUR FAULT!  And Gen Y?  Take a guess at THAT answer.  They are, after all, the product of Gen X.

Quote

Life is a paradox.  Every truth has its counterpart which contradicts it; and every philosopher supplies the logic for his own undoing.

Elbert Hubbard

We're Number 1! (Part 4)

Are America's Best Days Behind Us?

I, for one, think they are, but they don't have to be.  Unfortunately, there aren't many people who would listen, and do the work to make a change.

We're Number 1! (Part 3)

Number One? 20 Not So Good Categories That The United States Leads The World In

Admittedly, a little dated but does anyone really think thngs are getting better?

We're Number 1! (Part 2)

Best Education In The World: Finland, South Korea Top Country Rankings, U.S. Rated Average 

The United States places 17th in the developed world for education, according to a global report by education firm Pearson.

Yeah, doesn't sound too good to me, but what do I know?  I'm pretty sure the government will do something to fix it, though.

The rankings are calculated based on various measures, including international test scores, graduation rates between 2006 and 2010, and the prevalence of higher education seekers.

And here's the fix: Make school so simple that everyone graduates, and offer incentives for everyone to go to college. Wait, we're already doing that stuff, and our ranking just gets worse, it seems.  Too bad Americans aren't entitled to a foreign education.

Quote

The future
you shall know when it has come; before then, forget it.

Aeschylus

We're number 1!

International rankings of the United States

I'm just going to pick a few of these rankings to comment on:

Index of Democracy: 17 out of 167

Yeah, that's got to be a typo or something.

Life Expectancy: 49 out of 224
And it's likely to get worse .  But, there is some good news in the American medical arena.

Global Competitiveness Report: 4 out of 131
We were #1 until recently.  Good thing we're teaching our kids to not be some darned competitive!

Unfortunately, we only rank #1 in one area: Patents.  But, sadly, there seems to be growing sentiment against patent and copyright protections.  I do have to agree with one point in this link, and that is that our current system is broken.  But that doesn't mean we should eliminate protection altogether.  I'm just not really seeing the argument that the author makes that somehow, innovation and creation will continue, or even increase.  Why would anybody spend the time and resources to make something worthwhile only to have someone else profit from the idea without doing the work?

Welcome to the club!

Postal workers worry about job security

The Postmaster General Patrick Donahoe said he will not lay off any workers and accomplish the cuts by cutting overtime and part-time hours and offering buy outs to current employees.

 Sounds like a better deal than a lot of people get.  But have no fear, it's the union to the rescue!

... the National Association of Letter Carriers, vows to fight the plan, arguing the Postal Service doesn't have the authority to eliminate a day of service without Congressional approval.

Cuz, you know, the Postal Service is FLUSH WITH CASH!

Postal Service Loss Of $15.9 Billion Sets Record

Maybe they could try printing up some extra postage stamps and use those to pay the carriers.

Let's make a rule...

And then waive the rule cuz, you know, it's hard.

Education secretary defends No Child Left Behind waivers

I'm not saying I'm all for federal government involvement in education.  Far from it.  But this is one of the reasons why I'm so against it: we make a rule, then we waive the rule.  So the rule winds up wasting time and taxpayer money.

Quote

Political action is the highest responsibility of a citizen.

John F. Kennedy

Quote

We can predict the present without having to know everything about the past.


John D. Barrow

Speaking of stupid

Davis Co. high-speed chase ends in Salt Lake City

"A driver hauling a motor home led Davis County Sheriff’s Deputies on a chase that finally came to an end in Salt Lake County."

He was hauling a motor home...

Quote

Only dull people are brilliant at breakfast.

Oscar Wilde

What else do you expect?

Arianna Discusses The Jobless Generation On CNN's 'Your Bottom Line' (VIDEO) 

The problem here is that everyone has this sense of entitlement... that they are entitled to a college education... and that a college education entitles them to better paying jobs.  I can say without a doubt that I see plenty of young people getting jobs.  A lot of college grads will have to make the choice of working at a job that is "below" someone of their education level, or not work at all.  Why?  Because everyone is entitled to get that education.  Somebody just forgot that there aren't really that many jobs that require a college education.  There are lots of problems with the idea that everyone should go to college.  And it will only get worse as long as the government keeps handing out education money like it's candy.  It has created a situation where you're actually stupid to not do a stupid thing to do.

Why perform market analysis?

Sometimes it's just fun to look at what people are searching for when they happen on my blog.  Today, I noticed that someone landed on my finance blog by searching for "why perform market analysis."  I had to laugh because, for one, I don't answer that question anywhere on that blog (at least not to my recollection), and two, because I can imagine someone just reading the mainstream news thinking that whatever the guru of the day is saying is fact, so, why do the analysis myself?

But seeing as there is at least one inquiring mind out there that wants to know why they should do market analysis, I'll answer that here.  You shouldn't.  Just read other people's analysis, and when you're having trouble finding anyone with anything negative to say... when there are plenty of bulls trying to shame the "worriers" because the market keeps "proving" them wrong... start selling.  You may be the putz that isn't making the big returns today, but in the end, you won't be the putz that is trying to sell when no one is buying.  You know, the putz that will end up not only giving back all their gains, but a lot more.

Quote

A is A.

John Galt

Quote

A is not A; therefore it is A.

This doesn't seem to be an actual quote, but a formulation of a Buddhist argument.