I've had a revelation. The only reason capitalism has been "failing" due to skyrocketing costs...

>In a direct way, therefore, socialists are the actual problem with capitalism.

Well our planned economy distorts market signals in unbelievable ways. Large corporations are socialism for the investor class and above. Ostensibly "conservative" CEOs and board members will gladly suck government cock for government money.

A form of the modern rentiers, shown in the OP image, is supported by the planned economy and propogandistic state.

Does the government want to talk about real inflation? Does the government want to address crumbling infrastructure? Does the government want to execute solutions as opposed to holding endless committees and meetings? Fuck no.

It's much easier to shove LGBT in front of the optics than it is to admit the massive scale of our ticking timebombs of troubles. Officials would rather not rock the boat because they want their pensions and nothing else.

Capitalism has been "failing" because of post-industrialism. Industrial economy rises wages and living standards, service economy kills it.

Because its a lot easier to have a welfare state when you collect massive profit due to being the only large and intact industrialized country in the world. It's been a lot easier to kick the timebomb of welfare state obligations down the road.

I care more about some filipino whore gagging on my dick for a small small piece of my pension than I do about my country - The actual internal monologue of the bureaucrats.

I have no idea how that responds to my post. But I'm sure you're able to twist reality into proving your "revelation".

keynsianism cut out the "answer" of wage adjustment via organized labour, which did prevent this problem but in the long run unavoidable would have resulted in staglation- constantly rising incomes outpacing productivity gains

The welfare state has never been effectively retrenched despite the rhetoric.

>Why are university costs exploding? Subsidized tuition
hahaha no
university costs are exploding because universities aren't getting their money from the government anymore. for many, less than 10% of their budget is government funded. having to go private = higher burden on the students
>Why are medical costs exploding? Subsidized healthcare
hahaha no
medical costs are exploding because of the balance of greed between hospitals and insurance companies having healthcare shoot costs way up and insurance negotiating them down
america is the only developed nation with a retardedly expensive healthcare system and it has the least welfare state
>Why are wages stagnant? the costs and inflationary pressures of said policies squeezing middle-class employment.
wages are stagnant because neoliberalism (aka capitalism) is making it easier than ever for corporations to simply move their facilities to wherever is cheapest. free trade means no burden keeps them here
everything you believe is nonsense. please fuck off back to your echo chamber in with the rest of the retards

>doubling down

if you are talking about usa i am confused i also don't see how poor and dying have any real impact on our country

...

>keynsianism cut out the "answer" of wage adjustment via organized labour, which did prevent this problem but in the long run unavoidable would have resulted in staglation- constantly rising incomes outpacing productivity gains
What I get from this is that reality contradicts your statement (stagnation in wages coincided with a reduction of government intervention and welfare state, not the opposite), and you're aware of it, but you manage to rationalize that contradiction.

Because it's easy to have welfare state when you're in the post WWII glow of being the only intact industrial power. You're able to dictate terms and foster relationships that would have made a greedy roman senator salivate.

Of fucking course your welfare state is going to be generous.

>america ... has the least welfare state

Welfare state wasn't restricted to the US, nor was the neoclassical resurgence.

Exploding enrollment should REDUCE overall costs, not expand them. But costs have instead intentionally bloated from price gouging (eg: why are textbooks $999?), which consequentally outpaces government funding. This inflation would not exist if there were not a steady pour of subsidized students- also the reason why meme degrees exist.

>amerifat thinks I'm specifically singling out his country
Healthcare continues to rise across the western world, a figure which runs paralel to the degree of subsidization.

>wages stagnant bcuz neolib
partially correct,, as unionization would prevent this while leading to -> stagflation. The real issue is inflationary pressures outpacing normal wage increase, which is a result of above mentioned policy.

sorry, i should probably qualify that
in terms of benefits to the populace, compare the US welfare state to canada or european nations
its pretty light

>university costs are exploding because universities aren't getting their money from the government anymore. for many, less than 10% of their budget is government funded.

That's the shittiest excuse I've ever heard. That's still a massive amount of money for what we're actually getting. The cost rising for products and wages the schools need to expend versus the cost it takes to go there seems pretty disproportionate compared to a few decades ago.

>medical costs are exploding because of the balance of greed between hospitals and insurance companies

So greed exists for hospitals but not for universities?

>wages are stagnant because neoliberalism (aka capitalism) is making it easier than ever for corporations to simply move their facilities to wherever is cheapest. free trade means no burden keeps them here
everything you believe is nonsense.

Hard to work around. Free trade is God's diplomacy, and we'd suffer with more protectionism. We could blame corporations, but last I checked they had something like 80% of the GDP of the US in their hands and destroying them isn't as stable as it would be to make the market more competitive with rivals.

Stop mentioning pol. It just makes you look butthurt and it doesn't really mean anything.

I used to be like you. Until I realized that there literally isnt enough work for everyone. If gov was to force every single unemployed fag into work, we would still have a huge amount of unemployed people.

>public healthcare makes healthcare more expensive guys, I swear!

>Exploding enrollment
Where?
My state just removed state funding for unis.
Enrollment has CRATERED. We're talking double digit declines. Fees have been raised to compensate.

This story has repeated constantly in the US.

The amount of money people make in those countries is pathetic. On top of that, graphs (empirical data) is garbage. Their countries can't even afford to protect their citizens from terrorists.

Are you high? We have weekly "unpreventable" mass shootings. And compare the wage of any fast food worker there to the wage of a fast food worker here.

>The amount of money people make in those countries is pathetic
>empirical data is garbage
>Their countries can't even afford to protect their citizens from terrorists
(you)

western globally. The response of libleftys to the "failure" of capitalism to match wages with prices has been to advocate endless gibs in various form- UI, more subsidization, wage hikes etc. These policies may alleveate short term suffering but will only increase the real issue of inflation.

I want to make it clear that I am not saying "capitalism" is a humane system. I am saying that the current "failures" derive from distortion.

see the british example for what would have happened over the long run. Raising the min wage is not feasible when subsidization/inflation outpaces actual economic growth. Currency becomes overvalued

Really though, if a degree ends in "studies" it's basically just a debt load for no reason or skills. It's purely indoctrination masquerading as pseudo intellectualism that fills emotional needs more than market needs. But more women are going to school, more women are working. Which is ok. But now western countries are flooding themselves with migrants. So the work force is overloaded. And then the same people who want more women to work and flooding the labor force with excess outlanders then want increased general welfare.

>Exploding enrollment should REDUCE overall costs, not expand them.
that's where you're wrong. not only is enrollment not "exploding" anymore, but universities have limits for the amount of students they can accomodate anyways, so tuition had to be raised.
the collusion between the educational and textbook industries is something separate.
>This inflation would not exist if there were not a steady pour of subsidized students- also the reason why meme degrees exist.
foreign students can and gladly do pick up the slack. at one university in my state a chinese student pays 300% of the cost a state resident would for going there - but they still come and make up a large part of the student body. this is not a trend that is stopping anytime soon.
>amerifat thinks I'm specifically singling out his country
why exactly would i not when we're talking about america
>Healthcare continues to rise across the western world, a figure which runs paralel to the degree of subsidization.
nowhere in the developed world are healthcare costs as high for the average person as they are for an american. countries with more subsidization have cheaper costs to the patient.
as for inflation and wages you have no real argument beyond "it would happen anyway!" so whatever

The problem with the US is that we
A) prioritize the treatment of acute illness
B) promote high-carb high-iron diets that cause trillions of dollars worth of illness
C) Have a fucked up bargaining system where hospitals, insurance companies and patients reach a ridiculous equilibrium. Without insurance, health care would be vastly cheaper.

People aren't robots who eat units of energy. Insulin resistance, genetic damage, fucked up sleeping schedules, xenochemicals, and other shit, end up accelerating the onset of debilitating conditions.

>america is so safe guys
>gets shot

>Because its a lot easier to have a welfare state when you collect massive profit due to being the only large and intact industrialized country in the world.
So the solution is to bomb into ruin every other industrialized nation again so we're back to producing 29% of the world's GDP?

>It's purely indoctrination masquerading as pseudo intellectualism that fills emotional needs more than market needs.
Just because you get [TRIGGERED] by things you disagree with doesn't mean academics aren't interested in reading academic shit.

>why are costs exploding in certain forms of care
I don't know, maybe because human population has tripled in only 70 years?

>Just because you get [TRIGGERED] by things you disagree with doesn't mean academics aren't interested in reading academic shit.

Give one good reason there needs to be a gender studies or African studies degree. They:
>don't offer any value to the market
>have no practical application whatsoever
>lead to a breakdown of social cohesion by fomenting a victimhood narrative

I'm pretty sure that last reason is why we have them at all.

>when london mayor literally says they can't afford to track terrorists
>when canada says that they HAD to pay terrorists money
>when australians live as wage-slaves in their mcjobs their whole lives.

For fucking real, how can any honest capitalist sit there and say "the market has spoken and the market doesn't want this" when the invisible hand is peddling "The Intersectional Journal of Ethnocultural Gender Studies" for eight hundred bucks a volume?

>That's the shittiest excuse I've ever heard. That's still a massive amount of money for what we're actually getting. The cost rising for products and wages the schools need to expend versus the cost it takes to go there seems pretty disproportionate compared to a few decades ago.
it's not a shitty excuse, it's the truth. schools have to get more funding from students, so they're making them pay more. if you think the cost isn't raising in exact lockstep with the money they need to run, you're right.
>So greed exists for hospitals but not for universities?
i never said that. obviously as universities are becoming more private they are becoming more greedy
>everything you believe is nonsense.
want to point out what is wrong?
>We could blame corporations, but last I checked they had something like 80% of the GDP of the US in their hands and destroying them isn't as stable as it would be to make the market more competitive with rivals.
who said anything about destroying corporations? do you think the exorbitantly wealthy US corporations NEED free trade to exist?

>compare the wage of any fast food worker there to the wage of a fast food worker here.
they're sad people to be working like teenagers trying to buy a dime of weed. But they made that choice to work there, americans historically made the choice to dream higher. Europeons stopped and slunked into social democratic impiety, that has become their coffin.

systemic unemployment is not as widespread as current rates. I do agree with a need for welfare for this group, but this should not be extended to all persons.

America is it's own fucked up economy right now. Their issue is mixing private and public healthcare in such a bastardized way as to optimize inflation. But this trend extends beyond that country to all who adopt UI without communist-tier state interference

university enrollment since 1945 has undeniably exploded. Your case may differ (prehaps because the university overvaluation is collapsing rightfully?), but in general there are more students enrolling with costs jacking up exponentially

mass shootings are chiefly a resut of an unhealthy culture- how many 3rd world shitholes havemass shootings normally? Apocalyptic economic prospects from the inflation drug don't help however.

No it's not, you strawmanning little fag.
I've been doing manual labor since I was 13, now I pull in around a 100k a year if adjusted to hamburger bucks. I pay a lot of tax, and am all in favor of higher taxes if it's translated into a better society.

I'm active in both my union and the main socialist party, and most of the others who work with me have similar backgrounds.

Fuck you, and all your reactionary fuck friends for trying to discredit the socialist movement with your lazy mental short circuits.
Turn off your computer, leave your mothers basement and take a look at the real world you fucking worm.

America is the lightest western welfare state. The order is something like

Unreformed East European states (Ukraine, Belarus) < Russia < Reformed East Euro states (Baltics, Poland) < Quasi Western Asian states (Singapore, HK, Taiwan) < US < Australia/Ireland/Canada < UK/NZ < Germany < Mediterranean system < Austria/Swissland/Belgium/NL < France < Finland < Sweden < Norway < Denmark

>Really though, if a degree ends in "studies" it's basically just a debt load for no reason or skills. It's purely indoctrination masquerading as pseudo intellectualism that fills emotional needs more than market needs.
Ok but what does that have to do with employment if most jobs don't even require a college degree at all? Most jobs all you need is the ability to do manual labor or stand in place all day.

you can tell from the pathetic size of their houses, cars, and technological/cultural output. et al

>>don't offer any value to the market
>African Studies is shit
So by your logic we should also shut down all anthropology programs? Then what about museum programs? Sociology? Archaeology? Filmography? AS really just takes all of those fields and constrains interest to one continent.

Again, just because you're uninterested doesn't mean the market is.

many "foreign studies" degrees are pretty much explicitly for the purpose of preparing someone for a career overseas, similar to international business
see: asian studies

Tbh, yeah. But we've also had a crop of rotten fruit that has slowly ripened and rotted since post WWII. We not only were dominate in industry but we didn't have a fraction of the obligations that US governments are faced with.

>I have a feeling, please say I am correct
C'mon OP, provide some data

To them the only cultural studies that matter is "white" which is why so many "white nationalists" have a job working with the European classics, remember?

>schools have to get more funding from students

This is where you fucked up. Are you suggesting,for instance, that textbook prices are reasonably priced for what they offer? Universities and publishers are screwing students on the basis that they know they will pay up. At my own college it was all about expansion. A university is no different than any other business nowadays. There's nothing spiritually elevated about them but I understand the desire to view education as something more unique than just another business.

>i never said that. obviously as universities are becoming more private they are becoming more greedy

This is where your ideology is shining through. Private = greed, Public = Noble

Not even remotely true either. Public schools operate on the same principles, essentially as businesses.

>who said anything about destroying corporations? do you think the exorbitantly wealthy US corporations NEED free trade to exist?

Uh, yes. That was what I said. Tearing down trade would destroy us at this point. I don't like it either but protectionism would hinder trade and diplomacy all at once.

>So by your logic we should also shut down all anthropology programs? Then what about museum programs? Sociology? Archaeology? Filmography?

Sociology, yes. We don't need a massive number of directors or archaeologists. Those jobs don't increase in need relative to population. I like how you can't even give a single reason that gender studies and african studies are worthwhile. Again, they're a net negative because they prey on and inculcate victimhood mentality.

So no defense for gender or African studies. And no, there's absolutely no need for foreign studies. What does it offer that a linguistics degree and a week of OJT can't do?

by any relative graph, university rates over the past decade have increased. Universities don't have intrinsic limits on students you mong, expanding capacity is as easy as constructing another wing. On top of this so many students travel to their residence that an expansion in university quantity anywhere nationally would accomodate capacity.

kek @ not admitting textbook theft happened because they were able to guarantee enrollment despite the cost. Subsidization causes inelastic demand. As for foreign students, they are not systemic enough to jack prices. It's ludicrous to say that the entire cost of education has risen solely from this

>american healthcare costs
I mentioned this earlier, but america's specific system of mixed private+public is enormously expensive. But ironically it mirrors the university model, as both can "perscribe" expensive treatments knowning the state will pick up part of the bill. This can only cause inflationary price gouging

>Those jobs don't increase in need relative to population.
So you're telling me that if there are more people in general, more people won't want to visit museums? Um...citation?

>What does it offer that a linguistics degree and a week of OJT can't do?
Cultural immersion and detailed intimate knowledge.

>Are you suggesting,for instance, that textbook prices are reasonably priced for what they offer?
are you actually reading my posts or are you just singling things out randomly? i said that universities are becoming more greedy and obviously collusion with the textbook industry is part of that
>This is where your ideology is shining through. Private = greed, Public = Noble
cute, but no. that's not what i'm saying. when universities were largely public funded they, like most government institutions, had no real reason to turn much of a profit. but now they have to turn a profit, and thus have to become more like businesses. which is how they act.
>Not even remotely true either. Public schools operate on the same principles, essentially as businesses.
if we're talking about public schools as in general education, then you're so off it's not even funny. if modern public schools had to actually act like business and make a profit they would all go bankrupt within a year.
>Uh, yes. That was what I said. Tearing down trade would destroy us at this point.
it would absolutely not, even if it would have a negative effect at first.

>by any relative graph, university rates over the past decade have increased.
>Universities don't have intrinsic limits on students you mong, expanding capacity is as easy as constructing another wing. On top of this so many students travel to their residence that an expansion in university quantity anywhere nationally would accomodate capacity.
expanding a wing costs money that is taken from the student body. and i didn't say dorms. there are only so many professors and lecture halls for a university before they have to expand.

>So you're telling me that if there are more people in general, more people won't want to visit museums? Um...citatiion?

As soon as you cite to me that a museum guide / director needs a degree in archaelogy. I just scoped some out and all I see is history degree's preferred. So no, apparently I was right. The field work in archaelogy hasn't dramatically increased. It's pretty apparent you have no idea what state the academic to work process looks like right now.

>Cultural immersion and detailed intimate knowledge.

Again, it's better to pick those things up in OJT and actual practical experience. There's no need for foreign studies at all. What you just described is attained easier by actually going out and rubbing elbows with real people then simulating it in a book.

And no one so far has defended gender and african studies. Just throwing that out there.

>US prioritizes the treatment of acute illness
Aren't acute illnesses are something everyone prioritizes?
>promote high-carb high-iron diets that cause trillions of dollars worth of illness
Unregulated capitalism might have something to do with this.
>Have a fucked up bargaining system where hospitals, insurance companies and patients reach a ridiculous equilibrium. Without insurance, health care would be vastly cheaper.
That's merely an ideology-driven theory, that might work but it likely won't. On the other hand public healthcare is a tried and true solution.

>the cost of construction justifies textbook gouging and the ridiculous pigback gouging of academia

not even close. Not even anywhere close

>Again, it's better to pick those things up in OJT and actual practical experience.
t. man who has never actually worked internationally
no international business is going to risk themselves by hiring some schmuck with a linguistics degree and only give them one week of training. people who actually have lots of experience traveling or even living in the target foreign country are of course preferred, but a cultural studies degree doesn't hurt
>And no one so far has defended gender and african studies. Just throwing that out there.
they're academic fields. just because you find them silly doesn't mean they don't have a purpose.

>are you actually reading my posts or are you just singling things out randomly? i said that universities are becoming more greedy and obviously collusion with the textbook industry is part of that

You specifically said that "private" universities were becoming more greedy. Not true. They all are.

>had no real reason to turn much of a profit

How could you think this? There's ALWAYS more reason to create profit. If not for self interest then to leave a legacy in stone and mortar. You act like public institutions aren't self perpetuating. Agencies and universities like to keep their jobs. The better they do the more money they get. That's money in the pockets of individuals. But you're going to pretend that the public sphere is more altruistic on the basis of? Now that's cute.

>if we're talking about public schools as in general education, then you're so off it's not even funny. if modern public schools had to actually act like business and make a profit they would all go bankrupt within a year.

Explain this, because the government is throwing money at them and relative to operating costs they're running a massive debt collection scheme by selling a large number of useless degrees to people. You can't even defend this.

>it would absolutely not, even if it would have a negative effect at first.

So let me get this straight: If we increase protectionism, we'll maintain the same volume of traffic/trade? Because we won't. It will go down. When that happens the price for everything we can't produce domestically will go up. When that happens, businesses will go bankrupt, and that will put pressure on banks, who will lend less and heighten interest rates to cover their losses.

why the fuck are you so obsessed with putting words in mouth
fuck off, for real
just because i acknowledge that the loss of public funding has led universities to start acting like businesses does not mean i believe they are charging fair prices

>welfare state is socialism
Welfare state is the biggest reason why socialism hasn't taken over you retard

>As soon as you cite to me that a museum guide / director needs a degree in archaelogy
My boss Susannah, Curator of Anthropology, got her degree doing archaeological work on early slavery burials.

>history degree's preferred
For anthropological curators in encyclopedic collections? For art museums? Howabout you learn to jobhunt first.

>So no, apparently I was right
No, no you're not.

>The field work in archaelogy hasn't dramatically increased.
It's exploded since the advent of NAGPRA regulations and surveying requirements, to the point of having private excavation teams for new construction projects.

>It's pretty apparent you have no idea what state the academic to work process looks like right now.
Delusional/10.
I work at a university.

>no international business is going to risk themselves by hiring some schmuck with a linguistics degree and only give them one week of training. people who actually have lots of experience traveling or even living in the target foreign country are of course preferred, but a cultural studies degree doesn't hurt

Alright. I've lived overseas, I've traveled extensively. There's literally no "skill" you can attain from a book and a classroom that you can't pick up immediately in a social environment. There's no reason for preference here at all. What is it supposed to tell you? Cultural mores can be read on a blog from the net in 30 seconds. Generally doing what everyone is doing around you works, and it's very rare to meet people who are brutally offended by someones ignorance as long as they can explain that they were ignorant. Linguistics is incredibly useful in non-English speaking countries. It's an actual skill. Whereas what does foreign studies offer? Not being a "schmuk"? Come on now. You're being retarded on purpose.

>they're academic fields. just because you find them silly doesn't mean they don't have a purpose.

Just because thousands of people are being duped doesn't make it right.

>You specifically said that "private" universities were becoming more greedy. Not true. They all are.
you're going to have to qualify "all" then. because besides the fact that "all" universities have been getting less and less public funding, community colleges (which tend to get more government funding) vary very much in how greedy they are.
>How could you think this? There's ALWAYS more reason to create profit.
if you're running a business.
>But you're going to pretend that the public sphere is more altruistic on the basis of? Now that's cute.
how many governmental institutions do you know of that actually run a profit? because as far as i know, only the semi-private postal service does. i know the federal departments are very fast and loose with money because if they save any cash it just gets their budget reduced.
>Explain this, because the government is throwing money at them and relative to operating costs they're running a massive debt collection scheme by selling a large number of useless degrees to people.
you explained it yourself. the government throws money at them, so they waste it. also, high school degrees aren't useless at all. your rate of employment is significantly higher with a high school degree.
>So let me get this straight: If we increase protectionism, we'll maintain the same volume of traffic/trade?
what part of "negative effect" do you not understand

I dunno why you're complaining here instead of engaging in a massive letter writing campaign convincing schools to defund all the programs you dislike.

you seemed to be saying that high university expenses exist to cover construction cost. But the gouging is far in excess of these costs

How hard is it to admit that universities are "acting like a business" for their own benefit independently of whether they're subsidized? They are able to abuse subdisization for their own profit-gathering ends

on the job training is time consuming, often limited in scope of understanding, and far less efficient. Saying that we should default to the most inefficient but cheaper way to train people when education requirements are increasing is dumb

The USA probably has the highest terrorist kill count per capita in the developed world.

>Alright. I've lived overseas, I've traveled extensively.
what countries?
>Generally doing what everyone is doing around you works, and it's very rare to meet people who are brutally offended by someones ignorance as long as they can explain that they were ignorant
i hear a lot of stories from foreign students from Japan about they or a friend not understanding how bad "nigger" is to say and nearly getting their ass beat for it.
>Linguistics is incredibly useful in non-English speaking countries. It's an actual skill.
linguistics is a skill for understanding language. it might help you learn the language easier, but that's it. but you should already know the language in the first place, which is part of both a linguistics degree and a foreign studies degree. in that, linguistics has no more benefit.
>Whereas what does foreign studies offer?
a deeper cultural understanding as part of the degree.

>My boss Susannah, Curator of Anthropology, got her degree doing archaeological work on early slavery burials.

So one person you know counts as the industry standard. Interesting argument. I'm gonna have to doubt it though, considering all the positions I looked at preferred history degrees, which could replace foreign studies and african studies as well.

>For anthropological curators in encyclopedic collections? For art museums? Howabout you learn to jobhunt first.

I didn't say art was a useless degree. It's just oversaturated, like most of the non-STEM fields.

>No, no you're not.

If saying would only make it so. If I were wrong, then you could argue why I'm wrong instead of insisting that I'm wrong.

>It's exploded since the advent of NAGPRA regulations and surveying requirements, to the point of having private excavation teams for new construction projects.

I'm going to need sauce on this. I've read about NAGPRA but that definitely seems like an exaggeration.

>I work at a university.

roflmao I can tell, also that's not a good thing you have literally no reason to be proud of a low responsibility job with no real productive value that's the leading element in today's breakdown of social cohesion.

>you're going to have to qualify "all" then. because besides the fact that "all" universities have been getting less and less public funding, community colleges (which tend to get more government funding) vary very much in how greedy they are.

Oh right so all of the colleges that aren't public 4 year degree colleges are bad. The one you claim to work at just so happens to be the only good type. Interesting. And yes we should frontload community colleges and trade schools since the lower-working classes could quickly find a job and the difference in expense funding would be less than trying to fit them into a liberal arts heavy college with no real market value.

I don't think realizes how many universities have folded linguistics programs and cultural studies programs (as a full degree rather than a focus or minor) together. My school sure did.

For being all imperious about knowing how unis work these days he seems to be woefully uninformed about their mechanics and use.

>How hard is it to admit that universities are "acting like a business" for their own benefit independently of whether they're subsidized?
because it isn't true. the university-as-a-business model is a recent phenomenon.

i assumed he was referring to linguistics as in the actual field of linguistics, not as in foreign language programs

>when your system supposedly gets trashed because people live in it who don't obey it uncritically but you shit on socialists for demanding that people don't try to subvert the system

>low responsibility job
user, I look after 170k objects. I have the state police on speed dial in case someone accidentally trips the alarm. I helped oversee reaccreditation.

Why are you jumping to so many wild assumptions? Are you really so certain you have everything figured out?

t. /pol/

>I've had a revelation. basic GOP talking points are right

What I'm saying is that at my school, and many like it, the "german studies" program, for example, has been folded into the linguistics department. Africana has folded into anthropology.

That alone should tell you the people practicing and overseeing these programs see less hard distinction between them than does.

After the government forced public universities to become greedy by making them operate as businesses you mong

>Oh right so all of the colleges that aren't public 4 year degree colleges are bad.
why are you putting words into my mouth? i asked you to qualify the statement of "all", and all i mentioned was community colleges. why are you being so hostile over that? if you help me out and define terms we can work in, then we can have a more intricate discussion about it.
and you are right, trade schools and community colleges are a much better option for most people and people should be more encouraged to take advantage of them than jumping into a four year college immediately.

>if you're running a business.

In any institution. I think you understand by now that government agencies operate on a bottomline and public institution are no different in their incentive to increase gains.

>how many governmental institutions do you know of that actually run a profit? because as far as i know, only the semi-private postal service does. i know the federal departments are very fast and loose with money because if they save any cash it just gets their budget reduced.

That's a runaway assumption. Fed depts are often behind in technology. Go into one and look at the computers they're using. Cost overruns are almost always due to contractors, third parties, and/or mismanagement.

>you explained it yourself. the government throws money at them, so they waste it. also, high school degrees aren't useless at all. your rate of employment is significantly higher with a high school degree.

Never said high school degrees are useless. Nice goalpost shifting.

>what part of "negative effect" do you not understand

So you admit your trade scheme wouldn't work? That's what it sounds like.

>I dunno why you're complaining here instead of engaging in a massive letter writing campaign convincing schools to defund all the programs you dislike.

You think they would take my advice or keep raking in millions to tens of millions of dollars per year?

>on the job training is time consuming, often limited in scope of understanding, and far less efficient

Wrong wrong and wrong. Job training occurs while on the job, so it consumes literally no extra time and is a passive process. It's more precise in scope because it encompasses all aspects of the job one is already in and doesn't require a professor to guess at what is needed in every single situation and end up missing things. There's no reason to use a third party for this. It's efficient because it makes the employee money and customizes their training to the needs of the business.

>Because it's easy to have welfare state when you're in the post WWII glow of being the only intact industrial power. You're able to dictate terms and foster relationships that would have made a greedy roman senator salivate.
>what were the Trentes Glorieuses
>what was the Wirtschaftwunder
>what was the Japanese Postwar Economic Miracle
lol

>Free trade is God's diplomacy
>muh God

The only reason welfare states still survive to this day is because of people like Reagan and Thatcher in the 80's but they just delayed their inevitable implosion.

Basic economic theory says that capital goes to the place where returns are higher, the only reason capital didn't flow to third world countries until the 90's was because of their instability, actually the opposite happened wealth from poor countries went to rich countries looking for stability.

But as developing economies become more stable capital will keep flowing to undeveloped countries until living standards level up, this is good for poor countries but it's bad for the rich ones.

Large welfare states with the deficit they have today will inevitably die quite soon, lefties can only make it worse, they will never solve shit.

>Wrong wrong and wrong
My citation on it being inefficient is Human Resource Management in Public Service: Paradoxes, Processes, and Problems. 4E. by Berman, Bowman, West, and van Wart. Sage Publications, 2013.

What's yours the assertion of inefficiency being wrong?

>what countries?
I've lived in Europe for a few years. I've been to the middle east and across eastern asia.

>i hear a lot of stories from foreign students from Japan about they or a friend not understanding how bad "nigger" is to say and nearly getting their ass beat for it.

If someone is in a diplomatic position and on the job, then they shouldn't be using anything less than pristine language anyways so that's a pretty weak strawman. Also, when I went to Japan they were cool af.

>linguistics is a skill for understanding language. it might help you learn the language easier, but that's it. but you should already know the language in the first place, which is part of both a linguistics degree and a foreign studies degree. in that, linguistics has no more benefit.

Again foreign studies offers nothing of value and that time is better spent perfecting language skills.

>a deeper cultural understanding as part of the degree.

Pathetic. There's literally no reason to shell out money for something that's so passively and easily picked up and all the reading needs are met online. After going overseas, I can honestly say that difference between cultures are significant but not enough that people in a diplomatic setting will shit on anyone for not holding their chopsticks just right.

How did government force public universities to act in their own best interest by lining their pockets again? Honestly we should just set a limit on how much universities can make.

That's just what it sounded like. I see why it sounded obnoxious.

>muh muhs

And it's a British saying you uncultured swine. Yes, I happen to be Christian too.

>In any institution. I think you understand by now that government agencies operate on a bottomline and public institution are no different in their incentive to increase gains.
you must be really naive if you think government institutions even try to make a profit or keep costs down
>That's a runaway assumption. Fed depts are often behind in technology. Go into one and look at the computers they're using. Cost overruns are almost always due to contractors, third parties, and/or mismanagement.
when the department of energy closed their office in chicago, they leased a space for their last bit of time there (less than a year) and spent somewhere around a million dollars to renovate it. there are a fuckton of stories like this, ask any government employee.
even if we accept your claim that cost overrun is due to those reasons, how can you actually claim that a government dept can be run so inefficiently and still try to act like a business?
>Never said high school degrees are useless. Nice goalpost shifting.
dude what? i was talking about general education, aka education grades 1-12. high school is part of that. did you still think i was talking about colleges?
>So you admit your trade scheme wouldn't work? That's what it sounds like.
protectionism incentivizes businesses to stay at home and protects smaller companies. it has a negative effect in some areas and a positive effect in others, at least in theory. but i am unsure if it's even practical with the way the modern economy has become. still, large corporations could easily survive any protectionism. there is zero doubt of that.

Source?
I know people who've been to Australia and they say the exact opposite.

(you)

>God endorses any economic system

>making shit up
lol

>my freakonomics with a slick cover says things are more complicate than they really are

Sorry, but all practical experience counts to the contrary. I painted a pretty good picture above. Here, let me highlight the argument again so you can try reasoning this time:
>Wrong wrong and wrong. Job training occurs while on the job, so it consumes literally no extra time and is a passive process. It's more precise in scope because it encompasses all aspects of the job one is already in and doesn't require a professor to guess at what is needed in every single situation and end up missing things. There's no reason to use a third party for this. It's efficient because it makes the employee money and customizes their training to the needs of the business.

>you must be really naive if you think government institutions even try to make a profit or keep costs down

I know they aren't effective at all. My point is that carries over to the public institutions like public universities. I'm the one arguing against that naivete here.

>dude what? i was talking about general education, aka education grades 1-12. high school is part of that. did you still think i was talking about colleges?

I've been discussing post high school education the entire time. I made that pretty clear in the beginning. If you had no idea what was being discussed you should've just asked but it seems like there was heavy favor for the 4 year college scheme focusing on liberal arts, which is the absolute worst form of conditioning, debt racking, and anti-education of all time.

>freakonomics with a slick cover
More like a grad level HRM textbook, not that you'd know any.