By this reasoning, we shouldn't have any public education at all, or roads, or defense, because of the bathwater impact on those sectors. Why shouldn't we encourage industries that the market isn't sufficiently encouraging? The free market sucks at planning. It works to get rich people richer ASAP. Education is one of the best examples. E.g., the full economic and social impact of attacking public school teachers won't be felt for decades. Then the market can respond, and the country will wait for another few decades to recover. That's a pretty slow hand. |
I do hear a lot of hand-wringing about needing more STEM graduates. Well and good, but what's the advantage to STEM when the classes are (probably) harder, there's fewer girls, and the starting salaries are lower than business/law? (The free market awarded these mediocre MBAs and lawyers six-figure salaries.) |
invest in the future by pushing for more hi tech jobs. |
You can pretty much tell what "conservatives" are going to be obsessed with by paying attention to their "brain": http://www.balloon-juice.com/2011/11/03/and-i-will-be-satisfied-not-to-read-in-between-the-lines/ "Hey! You know what I'm angry about?!? People who study Classics!" So fucking stupid and predictable, but if you ever need to know why "conservatives" vote as a block, and liberals seem to be all over the map, it's because they all think with one brain. One incredibly stupid brain, as it is. |
I agree with your general sentiment, but it doesn't apply here. This thread was prompted by Obama's action, not by OWS, at least not directly. And I don't think anyone here talked about the classics. The value of a liberal arts BA isn't a left/right issue. Personally, I want fully socialized education, just not in any mostly frivolous subjects. On the other side, I imagine there are many rich conservatives who want only their rich kids in the top schools, and want them to read the classics. |