Originally posted by sh76Actually, Keynes also said that it would be preferable to have workers doing something useful rather than "digging holes." He was trying to make a point but sadly it is lost on most people.
John Maynard Keynes would disagree.
http://modeledbehavior.com/2011/10/31/digging-holes-just-to-fill-them-back-up-again/
Anyway, jobs with energy production firms are productive in every sense of the word.
Not all jobs with energy firms are useful (especially the best paid ones are often useless or even counterproductive) although producing petrol/energy etc. is clearly useful.
1 edit
Originally posted by normbenignNo one is saying get rid of oil companies. However, why should taxes subsidize already rich corporations? Having a highly educated population benefits a nation yet we are forcing students to take on untenable debt in order to get a higher education. How about subsidizing higher education!
Despite this dubious argument, the oil companies employ highly paid workers in the US, which also drives wages of others regionally. For example, Walmart in N.Dakota has to compete with oil workers wages and pays $19/hour there. Oil companies aren't all bad, and many of us would suffer without them.
Originally posted by PhrannyWe already subsidize higher education, which is why it is so expensive.
No one is saying get rid of oil companies. However, why should taxes subsidize already rich corporations? Having a highly educated population benefits a nation yet we are forcing students to take on untenable debt in order to get a higher education. How about subsidizing higher education!
How about not subsidizing anything? Having monstrously high corporate tax rates, which hardly anyone really pays is just plain stupid. Lower rates and eliminate the loopholes.
The post that was quoted here has been removedWhy would you label me, "fiercely anti-intellectual"? I place a high value on education, and continue mine in my eighth decade of life. Intellectualism and education doesn't have to take place in a University setting, in fact many University setting are fiercely anti-intellectual. Students are forced to digest and agree with the views of the learned, instead of seeking the truth.
Originally posted by normbenignI fail to grasp how subsidizing education makes it more expensive. Education is expensive. However, I would argue that subsidizing education at every level and making sure that citizens are as skilled as possible is equal in importance to national defense. The U.S. is squandering one of our most precious resources by failing to focus on education.
We already subsidize higher education, which is why it is so expensive.
How about not subsidizing anything? Having monstrously high corporate tax rates, which hardly anyone really pays is just plain stupid. Lower rates and eliminate the loopholes.
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadNot to worry, Hillary will save us.
Hardly news. This has been going on for a long time and is pretty much well known.
Eight more years of hope and change!! 😵
Last poll indicates that Hillary's approval rating leads by over 10% from any other candidate running currently.
In terms of historical approval rankings, Hillary is right behind Joseph Stalin.
Originally posted by normbenignAt which university have you encountered a "anti-intellectual" setting?
Why would you label me, "fiercely anti-intellectual"? I place a high value on education, and continue mine in my eighth decade of life. Intellectualism and education doesn't have to take place in a University setting, in fact many University setting are fiercely anti-intellectual. Students are forced to digest and agree with the views of the learned, instead of seeking the truth.
The post that was quoted here has been removedNational defense is not based merely on the military, as I am sure you are aware. It is equally or perhaps more important to have a strong, diverse economy. Everyone benefits when more people are educated and earning more money as this means more government supported services which benefits everyone. In a democracy the checks and balances and the voting booth should keep the government focused on programs that benefit citizens. The humanities and social sciences (economics is a social science) are just as important to the growth of an economy and the well being of citizens as the hard sciences.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraObviously it's better for people to be productive than non-productive. Keynes' point was that there is some value to government subsidized employment even aside from production.
Actually, Keynes also said that it would be preferable to have workers doing something useful rather than "digging holes." He was trying to make a point but sadly it is lost on most people.
Not all jobs with energy firms are useful (especially the best paid ones are often useless or even counterproductive) although producing petrol/energy etc. is clearly useful.
Originally posted by normbenignYou're over 70? Wow. Wouldn't have guessed it. Keep on keepin' on, man.
Why would you label me, "fiercely anti-intellectual"? I place a high value on education, and continue mine in my eighth decade of life. Intellectualism and education doesn't have to take place in a University setting, in fact many University setting are fiercely anti-intellectual. Students are forced to digest and agree with the views of the learned, instead of seeking the truth.