Thread: Rep. Ron Paul: "Education is Not a Right"

fuck Ron Paul and his son...

What a flame baiting thread title. You make it sound as if this applies to all education. It doesn't. He's talking about tax funded loans for post-high school education.

And I agree with him. Schools keep jacking up the tuition. They do it so much that students simply can't afford it and resort to getting loans. Which in turn allows the school to keep jacking up the tuition. A really nice profitable circle for the schools. Of course, it's a vicious downward spiral for the students.

I agree with the idea of tuition being out of control. If students are able to afford a Bachelors degree, Graduate school is not an option for many, even at a state school, because the amount of debt incurred as an undergrad is prohibitive.

Originally Posted by DOMS

What a flame baiting thread title. You make it sound as if this applies to all education. It doesn't. He's talking about tax funded loans for post-high school education.

And I agree with him. Schools keep jacking up the tuition. They do it so much that students simply can't afford it and resort to getting loans. Which in turn allows the school to keep jacking up the tuition. A really nice profitable circle for the schools. Of course, it's a vicious downward spiral for the students.

he's referring to federal scholarships, grants and student loans. but the real problem is that NCAA brackets are based on tuition rates...

I actually like Ron Paul, I would vote for him until I see a better candidate.

Originally Posted by LAM

he's referring to federal scholarships, grants and student loans

That's still is an enabler for schools to charge more.

I'm also still in agreement because, like him, I don't agree with redistribution of wealth.

Originally Posted by min0 lee

I actually like Ron Paul, I would vote for him until I see a better candidate.

You're not going to see one. At best, you'll get another Obama. That's to say, someone that appears to be better, but will maintain the status quo once he gets in. And, quite likely, be even worse than the one before him.

Originally Posted by DOMS

I'm also still in agreement because, like him, I don't agree with redistribution of wealth.

so then you are 100% against the current business practices on Wall Street that have caused such?

things such as short selling, hedging, credit default swaps, etc.?

Originally Posted by LAM

so then you are 100% against the current business practices on Wall Street that have caused such?

things such as short selling, hedging, credit default swaps, etc.?

I most certainly am. I'm also against crap like the TARP. That's redistribution of wealth to help a corporation. Screw that.

Originally Posted by DOMS

I most certainly am. I'm also against crap like the TARP. That's redistribution of wealth to help a corporation. Screw that.

Originally Posted by DOMS

I most certainly am. I'm also against crap like the TARP. That's redistribution of wealth to help a corporation. Screw that.

I am against giving my hard earned money to the damn lazy bums out there.

ron is right but he could never win the prez in 2012

Originally Posted by LAM

so then you are 100% against the current business practices on Wall Street that have caused such?

things such as short selling, hedging, credit default swaps, etc.?

I'm not...short selling, hedging and CDS (CDS to a lesser extent) are all ESSENTIAL tools in risk mgmt. Do you think they should banned in all circumstances?

short selling causes job losses and it's destructive in general, shouldn't be legal or at the min gains highly taxed to simply discourage it. hedge funds are new and barely regulated they can move to much money with out much regulation we were better with out them, they are self serving. and CDS are fine when they are backed by real assets or at least a decent portion. you can't have a bunch of bad assets being backed up by other bad assets. the shit they do on wall street today it's like hot potato with bad debts

Originally Posted by LAM

short selling causes job losses and it's destructive in general, shouldn't be legal or at the min gains highly taxed to simply discourage it. hedge funds are new and barely regulated they can move to much money with out much regulation we were better with out them, they are self serving. and CDS are fine when they are backed by real assets or at least a decent portion. you can't have a bunch of bad assets being backed up by other bad assets. the shit they do on wall street today it's like hot potato with bad debts

Short selling can create just as many jobs as losing them...can you explain to me why you think its destructive? How these jobs are lost?

Of course hedge funds are self serving...all capitalist entities are self serving.

agreed on the CDS...but I don't understand you rationale and premise on why shorting and hedge funds (which use shorting a hedge to manage risk) is wrong.

Do you fully understand what shorting an equity actually entails?...shorting a stock, equity, fund, currency, or whatever the asset may be is no more dangerous than going long on the asset...you could argue that if its an orchestrated short amongst a collective group intended to move then the market, then its destructive, but that is also illegal for going long as well.

Shorting an asset is how financial firms, global companies with transaction exposure, commodity consuming firms etc all manage their risk. Thats how firms the airline industry manages to keep its fuel costs in check so the average joe can afford to fly. If they were flying on the same cost consumers paid for gas, flying would only be affordable for the top 1%.

Selling a call or buying a put option is not destructive LAM...its just turned into a dirty 4 letter word. Don't believe all the hype and disinformation out there.

I also forgot to mention, that shorting is THE tool on how the market brings bubbles back to reality

Who needs free health care when they can send their kids to free high school......I love that America has the worst pre college education system in the industrialized world. The fact that college is free for illegal Mexicans is even better.

The USA rocks!!!!!!

Originally Posted by lnvanry

Short selling can create just as many jobs as losing them...can you explain to me why you think its destructive? How these jobs are lost?

Of course hedge funds are self serving...all capitalist entities are self serving.

agreed on the CDS...but I don't understand you rationale and premise on why shorting and hedge funds (which use shorting a hedge to manage risk) is wrong.

Do you fully understand what shorting an equity actually entails?...shorting a stock, equity, fund, currency, or whatever the asset may be is no more dangerous than going long on the asset...you could argue that if its an orchestrated short amongst a collective group intended to move then the market, then its destructive, but that is also illegal for going long as well.

Shorting an asset is how financial firms, global companies with transaction exposure, commodity consuming firms etc all manage their risk. Thats how firms the airline industry manages to keep its fuel costs in check so the average joe can afford to fly. If they were flying on the same cost consumers paid for gas, flying would only be affordable for the top 1%.

Selling a call or buying a put option is not destructive LAM...its just turned into a dirty 4 letter word. Don't believe all the hype and disinformation out there.

ok just looking at hedge funds. Hedge funds operate outside of the traditional SEC and banking regs and are not open to the public only "select" investors.

every-time there are new rules and legislation enforced on wall street they create "new" ways to make money all of them mostly destructive to those on the other end of the transaction. when you look at very large sums (billions) of money being exchanged they have to be viewed as not just money in the paper sense but jobs and people as this money is coming from somewhere. i stated the other day in another post when you lightly apply newtons 3rd law to economics the outcome is always very destructive. remember newtons stated for every action there is an equal and "opposite" reaction. so when a hedge fund manager is paid billions of dollars for "performance", on the other end of that transaction are millions of people who have lost jobs, investments, etc. the money has to come from somewhere and it's not coming from savings or being printed for that specific transaction.

and to say that hedging is good we only need to look at the how the people of the US and UK have benefited from such practices over the years. who has a higher standard of living since the inception of these economic devices? only the hedge fund managers...

when you look at the numbers on the Dow from 1970 to date and the practices it's so easy to see that the NYSE is a totally self-serving entity that caters and only benefits the wealthy. stagnant wages across most markets AS stock profits have increased is proof positive of this.

Originally Posted by LAM

ok just looking at hedge funds. Hedge funds operate outside of the traditional SEC and banking regs and are not open to the public only "select" investors.

every-time there are new rules and legislation enforced on wall street they create "new" ways to make money all of them mostly destructive to those on the other end of the transaction. when you look at very large sums (billions) of money being exchanged they have to be viewed as not just money in the paper sense but jobs and people as this money is coming from somewhere. i stated the other day in another post when you lightly apply newtons 3rd law to economics the outcome is always very destructive. remember newtons stated for every action there is an equal and "opposite" reaction. so when a hedge fund manager is paid billions of dollars for "performance", on the other end of that transaction are millions of people who have lost jobs, investments, etc. the money has to come from somewhere and it's not coming from savings or being printed for that specific transaction.

and to say that hedging is good we only need to look at the how the people of the US and UK have benefited from such practices over the years. who has a higher standard of living since the inception of these economic devices? only the hedge fund managers...

when you look at the numbers on the Dow from 1970 to date and the practices it's so easy to see that the NYSE is a totally self-serving entity that caters and only benefits the wealthy. stagnant wages across most markets AS stock profits have increased is proof positive of this.

hedge funds have to obey all the same SEC regs that Ibanks do...case in point Raj

The week ahead | Video | Reuters.com

hedge funds are no more closed or open to the public than any other Ibank...they don't have to accept a customer if they don't want to. If you want argue dark pool trading then OK...but thats not unique to hedge funds.

And hedge fund managers are NOT the only ones to benefit...look at all their customers (certain consumers, mutual fund mgrs that are used by the enormous 401k community, commodity based corporations that provide goods and services for average consumers).

I'm not trying to sound like a prick here, but this argument you're putting forward on shorting and hedge funds is pretty weak, which is in contrast to your normally pointed posts. The financial instruments and tools are no more "wrong or evil" than a firearm is. Guns shouldn't be banned b/c criminals use them for violence.

Originally Posted by lnvanry

hedge funds have to obey all the same SEC regs that Ibanks do...case in point Raj

The week ahead | Video | Reuters.com

hedge funds are no more closed or open to the public than any other Ibank...they don't have to accept a customer if they don't want to. If you want argue dark pool trading then OK...but thats not unique to hedge funds.

HEDGE FUNDS ARE BEST UNDERSTOOD BY WHAT THEY ARE NOT. They are not regulated. To oversimplify slightly, a hedge fund is like a mutual fund that has been designed to avoid four federal laws that generally require investment funds and their advisers to identify fund officers and holdings and to submit to Securities and Exchange Commission oversight.

hedge funds do not have to comply with the Investment Company Act of 1940. Nor do they have to comply with the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 or the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. The last act is only applicable if the act applies only if the manager has more than 14 clients and promotes himself to the public as an investment adviser.

and yes not all hedge funds are bad or mismanaged but there has been about 50-70 complaints filled by the SEC in the past years.

Originally Posted by LAM

hedge funds do not have to comply with the Investment Company Act of 1940. Nor do they have to comply with the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 or the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. The last act is only applicable if the act applies only if the manager has more than 14 clients and promotes himself to the public as an investment adviser.

All fair points...While I can agree that the laws/regs need to be adjusted to keep up with industry advancement, that doesn't mean you out right ban a hedge fund and certainly not shorting.


Good speech from the SEC...re: section #3
SEC Speech: Regulating Hedge Funds and Other Private Investment Pools (Andrew J. Donohue; February 19, 2010)

College is bullshit!

Requiring a degree to be a manager at some mall store is bullshit. 50% of college classes are bullshit. Charging an engineering student $300-$600 per credit hour for art appreciation and physical fitness is bullshit. The price of tuition is bullshit. The price of books is bullshit. Grants to poor kids, but none for middle class kids is bullshit. Offering no help to students to pay off the student loans that they were practically forced to get is bullshit.

The university system needs overhauling just as bad as our government does.

Originally Posted by lnvanry

All fair points...While I can agree that the laws/regs need to be adjusted to keep up with industry advancement, that doesn't mean you out right ban a hedge fund and certainly not shorting.


Good speech from the SEC...re: section #3
SEC Speech: Regulating Hedge Funds and Other Private Investment Pools (Andrew J. Donohue; February 19, 2010)

Below is an example of one of the "tricks" as to how top hedge fund managers are pulling in billions of dollars year....all bad for the people on the other end of the transaction

In bankruptcy situations, hedge funds routinely throw their weight around by combining vote buying and hoarding techniques. To reorganize its business and get out of bankruptcy, a company needs the approval of each class of creditors: banks, bondholders, or suppliers that have loaned it money, for example, or firms that hold mortgages on its buildings. Approval comes when creditors holding two-thirds of a class of debt agree. If a hedge fund buys enough debt of a particular class, it can control the class's vote and, for example, pressure the company to quickly sell most of its assets rather than restructure and save its business. The effect—all perfectly legal—is to put the troubled company at the mercy of the hedge fund's scheme for short-term profits.

I think our education and health care system pretty much sucks ass being the "richest and most powerful" country in the world.

Originally Posted by LAM

Below is an example of one of the "tricks" as to how top hedge fund managers are pulling in billions of dollars year....all bad for the people on the other end of the transaction

In bankruptcy situations, hedge funds routinely throw their weight around by combining vote buying and hoarding techniques. To reorganize its business and get out of bankruptcy, a company needs the approval of each class of creditors: banks, bondholders, or suppliers that have loaned it money, for example, or firms that hold mortgages on its buildings. Approval comes when creditors holding two-thirds of a class of debt agree. If a hedge fund buys enough debt of a particular class, it can control the class's vote and, for example, pressure the company to quickly sell most of its assets rather than restructure and save its business. The effect—all perfectly legal—is to put the troubled company at the mercy of the hedge fund's scheme for short-term profits.

I agree...thats bogus and the USG has to update its laws to properly regulated them. Not all hedge funds act in this unethical manner though.

Originally Posted by lnvanry

I agree...thats bogus and the USG has to update its laws to properly regulated them. Not all hedge funds act in this unethical manner though.

that i do agree on but this a common practice for the top hedge fund managers...there is no way 1 person can pull in 4-5 billion dollars a year with out hurting people on the other ends of those transactions.

just because certain practices are legal doesn't mean they are right (moral) or healthy for the majority, the tobacco industry is a perfect example of this..

I know I could't have gone to school without scholarships or federally funded loans. Luckily I had a full scholarship for college, however, I know lots of smart people who went to college to become wonderful engineers, scientists etc. who did not have perfect grades in highschool that would have qualified them for full academic scholarships. I know a brilliant molecular biologist who graduated last in his high school class and found his calling in college. We all know good test takers are not exactly always the smartest. I got a 85 grand scholarship for medical school but still had to borrow close to 90 grand (that is cheap these days). The strange thing is I entered college thinking I was going to be a finance or linguist major, not a chemistry and mathmatics major. I changed my mind half way through sophmore year. My twin sister entered as a english major and graduated with a software engineering degree. Thus, if we both didn't have the opportunity to explore our talents in college or if we had been offered scholarships based on utilitarian degrees, we never would have gone and found our calling....