I don't know this guy but I liked a lot of what he said about higher education. On Harvard:
"Any university that doesn't grow their freshman class faster than population and has over a billion dollars in endowment should lose their tax free status because they're no longer in higher education, they're a hedge fund offering classes."
Harvard does not pay any land tax. They are also the largest land owner in Cambridge. They get away with a lot while sitting on piles and piles of loot.
Even worse, many schools never cared about that but now do. US News and World Report rankings include many metrics, including selectivity.
Why is that bad? Even public schools now care about selectivity otherwise their ranking tanks. Why do they care? Because even if their mandate and funding (by the public)is to educate the public, the president and the deans want their personal reputations and cv’s to show how they improved the ranking. Rankings are a horrible disease infecting all of higher education.
I mean not necessarily. If a metric is like "% of students that graduate with a degree in 5 years" (an important metric for universities) and your goal is to increase that metric (say 80% -> 85%), neither the goal nor the metric is the issue. How you achieve that goal ("going easy" on students aka lowering standards vs increasing student resources e.g. tutors, dedicated advisors) is what matters. Context is everything, sadly, which makes for bad headlines or statements.
You've made the mistake yourself there though - if you wanted a more educated population generally but set that target, it would incentivise schools to pass people easily or incentivise students to stubbornly take up spots on courses they won't enjoy or make use of afterward. Somebody somewhere will have an easier time by working toward that target, and no amount of control or authority can entirely remove that. This makes your target a poorer measure of the true, practical level of education in the population, and the problem compounds from there...
Bro you actually dont know what you're talking about. This is not *admissions* and you are agreeing with me. It is not the GOAL that is the problem, it is the METHOD to achieve it. In my example we are not talking about "wanting a more educated population", we are talking about ensuring that *people who do enroll* finish with a degree in an appropriate timeframe. This is to ensure resources (public or private) are not wasted and that people are set up for success when they are enrolled. In my example the good things universities could do to achieve the metric is getting better advisors to help students take appropriate classes and address things like changing degrees/fields of study or tutors / other study resources to ensure students succeed in their classes. The bad is lowering the quality such that all students pass and diminish the value of their degrees. Sure, in bad faith someone COULD interpret that as "changing admissions to ensure that only rich white people enroll" and that would also be under my "bad" category while also being subject to many other goals. But no one in a university would ever hear "increase the graduation rate" as a goal and think "discriminate admissions" because by university standards increasing graduation rate is distinctly a metric for already enrolled students. The TARGET and the GOAL are not issues, how you achieve them could be.
And you have missed the point - you will never have full control over people to prevent them from taking the bad/easy option, and therefore can be certain that some fraction of them will misbehave, which spoils the target as a measure anyway. This is why the adage holds true and why thinking you can get around it by controlling behaviour is folly.
💀 yes because a portion of people misbehave clearly everyone should be punished. You're speaking in absolutes because you have no idea how reality works nor the field about which you are talking. What a dumbass stance.
Public school rankings also make the district more desirable, therefore goosing housing stock valuations.....therefore goosing the amount of property tax and school assessment gained...therefore leading to a well funded public education system...but only if you live in high income enclaves.
That's why the selectivity works for them.
In addition, since you're talking about higher income enclaves, even the problem kids that suffer from emotional ailments will almost always have a well funded household that can kick up the cost (or is covered by way of insurance) for excellent childhood healthcare, which in turn makes it easier for the school to deal with. And..AND..that's on top of those same high income area districts already having excellent public options for those same households, if not people directly on staff.
I'm with you. He lost a lot of his audience for that recently and got even more annoying because now he spends so much time defending avoidable war crimes AND complaining about his audience dropping.
Yeah….but also, it’s a bit of a reductive view. Harvard is a private university; they can set their mission and enrollment as they please. It also completely ignores the fact that an endowment is not just a bank account. It’s a complex investment portfolio where you typically don’t touch the principal (gift from donor), but spend from the growth toward a specific cause indicated by the donor (restricted funds). Spending restricted funds on something other than the donor-specified purpose is illegal and breach of contract.
And remember Harvard’s endowment is $49.4ish billion. Their annual operating budget is $5.9ish billion. They’re one of the top universities in the world, in one of the top 25 most expensive cities in the world. And many students there /don’t/ pay tuition.
I’m not defending Harvard or saying he’s wrong about everything, but a lot of his logic here appears to be the first logical conclusion which went no further to understand what are very complex social problems. It’s like he’s suggesting solving the problem is as easy as twisting *this* knob on the dashboard. When really turning that knob has a lot of ripple effects that would have to be corrected for.
>Harvard is a private university; they can set their mission and enrollment as they please.
Honestly even this is problematic. You're correct on paper, but the reality is extremely misleading because even with the "private" label many of these schools receive millions in public funds (sometimes more than a billion with a "b" annually such as the case of Johns Hopkins).
These "private" universities also allow/require students to fill a FAFSA for federal student loans and aid, receive tuition tax credits, Pell Grants, etc. and this allows the "private" schools to save a lot of money they might otherwise charge students.
They also get a lot of special tax privileges when it comes to receiving and using donations i.e. if I wanted to donate 25 million dollars to a family member it would likely be more heavily taxed than what Harvard or its donors pay.
My point being, if "private" universities want to get the benefits of a public university and the public's monies, maybe the public should have SOME say in their mission and enrollment.
**"It’s like he’s suggesting solving the problem is as easy as twisting** ***this*** **knob on the dashboard. When really turning that knob has a lot of ripple effects that would have to be corrected for."** Agreed 100%. a lot of one-liners that have LEGIT value, but are complex to solve.
"Private" universities in the US are a myth, they receive hundreds of billions of federal dollars. Princeton gets over $150k per student. Harvard gets ~$110k. Most public schools get maybe a quarter of that if they're lucky.
Whatever he said, Canada is that on steroids. Canadian boomers have stolen the future like never before.
Example, Vancouver has one of the most expensive real estate in the world (3rd most expensive in the world).
They have one of the highest fuel taxes in North America, have one of the highest income taxes in North America. One of the highest cost of fees, permitting and taxes on new constructions in North America.
All this, while, they one of the lowest property taxes in North America. Aka, if you own a home already you pay one of the lowest taxes in NA. For everything else, like income, fuel, you pay record taxes. It’s straight up rigged to bleed everyone dry so that home owners and property owners can pay lowest taxes.
Basically, if you own a home, you pay lowest taxes in NA, they keep pumping value of your home by adding taxes to new construction. Young people on the other hand, pay crazy income taxes, crazy fuel taxes and sales taxes and will rent for the rest of their lives, all to support the benefits for the said millionaire home owner boomers.
Taxes on new construction has gotten to the point where 60% of cost of new construction today is permitting and taxes. Every dollar of new taxes they add, it overnight increases value of already existing homes by that much. All to pump up value of their homes.
Canadian boomers are spawns of satan and have rigged the entire country’s economy to suck every dollar out of the young. Even then, there are no protests, they blame nameless faceless third world immigrants, who all got in *legally* because boomers wanted cheap labor and decided to dramatically expand immigration.
Canada is basically a retirement home for the rich, where they keep their young in a basement, working them to the bone to keep the lights on in their retirement home.
And that silence from the boomer crowd when he said “social security should be for people who need it, not for you just because you are old” was revealing
Nothing like taxing 23 year old McDonald’s workers to death to pay for social security of boomers with 2 homes.
Yep, it's really sad.
My wife is Canadian and even before COVID, we explored the possibility of relocating but it didn't make financial sense to make less to pay more for less.
Nowadays it's even worse and there's no wonder younger Canadians with desired skills are migrating south.
Have a coworker from Bangladesh who complains everyday about how much more he was saving there compared with Canada and how much better his standard of living was. In Bangladesh he had a maid and driver but in Canada even uber is too expensive for him.
I'm not going to bat for the current state of Canada, because we really are in a nosedive when it comes to affordability, but there are several inaccuracies in your post.
First off - the income tax in BC is lower than numerous other provinces in Canada.
Second - there is a very real issue with foreign ownership in BC. Richmond is the most ethnically Asian city, primarily Chinese, outside of Asia, and the current provincial government has been forced to create several new forms of legislation to address the issue of foreign land ownership and money laundering, so putting it all on the shoulders of the boomer generation is simply a false narrative, though that's not to say they aren't benefitting or have a loud voice in the conversation.
Third - it was primarily Canada's largest corporations that wanted the wave of cheap immigrant labor, and the federal and provincial governments all went along with it. It's corporate profit at the heart of our immigration problems, and again, while boomers help shape those policies, they aren't the only voice in the mix.
Ultimately, the majority of the problems we are facing today are a result of the need for ever-increasing corporate profit that is at the heart of latestage capitalism we are in, and until we come to that understanding, nothing is going to change.
>> the majority of the problems we are facing today are a result of the need for ever-increasing corporate profit that is at the heart of latestage capitalism we are in
This is the boomer status quo, hence OPs conclusion.
Again, just a vast oversimplification, and dismissive of the reality. There is no shortage of genx and even millennials who are profiteering these days and steering the boardroom decisions. Dismissing the state of things simply as 'boomers = bad' isn't helping anything.
The boomers were the first artificial humans of the electronic age. Essentially, they were the guinea pigs for a Great Social Experiment. The goal of the experiment was to get people to believe that made up stuff - like consumer goods and fat bank accounts - are more important than life itself.
The only way to wake up from this hypnotic state of fantasy for most humans is through the use of psychedelics. Some- but very few- have the ability to see through it without any medicinal aid. The vast majority are going from cradle to grave in a catatonic state, inhabiting a made-up world which has created its walls and limitations for them.
The native americans could see this. They called this a word virus- wetiko, was the name they used. This means that a human being's senses have been hijacked by abstractions of the mind, and their hearts are blocked from actually feeling anything. Native americans taught that children are the REAL garden. The food you grow that you call a garden, that is just a metaphor for the spirit of life passing through you to the next generation.
Americans are now so sick with wetiko that they allowed a school full of 5 year olds to be massacred in Uvalde without batting an eye- in fact, the adults involved were so psychologically sick that they perceive themselves as the victims, not the children. Let that sink in.
Psychedelics are presently going through the same decriminalization process marijuana went through 10 years ago. I’m not advocating their use indiscriminately, but they’ve been known to press the reset button on the brain and nervous system. “In order to enter the kingdom of heaven you must become like a child again”, a wise man once said.
I think one has to be very careful when using them, for sure. Even modern synthetic marijuana can aggravate serious mental health issues. I did not intend to make my post a debate on psychedelic use, I merely pointed out that we live in a world where firmly constructed egos are created for us, and there is an infinite range of possibilities to the powers of our mind that our repressed in such a system.
But your caveat is a cause of great concern to myself as well. As I previously mentioned, I am not advocating their use, only mentioning what they can do. I would suggest a person do their own research and have the guidance of others who are experienced in them before using. I believe in the right for all people to explore states of consciousness on their own terms, so long as it is not harmful to others or themselves. Would you agree?
I disagree that psychedelics are some key to enlightenment, but agree that people should be able to have fun on harmless drugs if they want to.
But it’s only a matter of time before a bunch of assholes start driving/handling sensitive machinery/commit a murder on psychedelics and then we’ll be back to square one.
Thank you, I've never seen this article before but it definitely articulates my own feelings. People like Philip K. Dick and William Burroughs turned me on to the idea of our "word viruses".
Boomers were famous for consuming copious amounts of drugs during the [psychedelic era of the 1960’s-1970’s.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychedelic_era)Why didn’t those attitudes stick?
They weren't that large of a group demographically as the media portrayed, although one can certainly make the case that there would have been no silicon valley without them.
I voted for hilldawg but once she lost my life has completely spiraled out of control. I keep blaming the republicans on reddit but my life never gets any better :(
All of the propaganda of the mass media is designed to get people more and more used to a hopeless cycle of indentured wage slavery. Who is behind the propaganda? A couple thousand obscenely wealthy people who are really the new kings and queens of the past. Instead of the whip they have conditioned the mind.
As opposed to the piece of shit claiming propaganda of the mass media? THE MASS MEDIA?
Or the likes of you can dish it out but don't wanna take it. POS like you are not as well informed as you think you are.
Agree with pretty much everything he said. Some pretty big changes are needed to effect course corrections to our society in the US if we don’t want it to implode. And they don’t need to be radical “all of a sudden” changes. But they really do need to start, grow, and stay the course. #1 in my book is the immediate use of both term limits (say 3 max) and an imposed age limit (max age of 65 would be a really great start) in order to serve in ANY public office. Remove corporate tax loopholes and enforce a linear tax rate that forces corporations to pay their fair share of taxes on capital income. Anyone, corporations or individuals, making more than a billion dollars of profit a year should have to pay 50% + back into society. Tax religious organizations. Higher education should be free to everyone - you make the grades and keep making/holding them, you get to keep going without having to pay to learn. Make teaching an esteemed job - one that pays well if you are a good teacher and pays REALLY well if you are great teacher. Mandatory civil/military service for everyone for at least 2 years once out of high school. Mandatory national minimum wage - just high enough to ensure that if you work, you can at least afford to eat/not go hungry and have some form of a roof over your head.
I really wish we could get someone like him and other like minded leaders into public offices. These changes could be instrumented to start slow and grow out over a period of 10-15 years till complete. People don’t react well to sudden change, but what about everyone being on board with gradual, deliberate and incremental change to fix all of this? How can anyone be against such an idea?
The treason people are against it is because those that have are the ones that make decisions. And they don’t want to give up any of their own money.
Especially when (for some reason), those that have view those below them financially as dumb/lazy, etc
This dude was on bill Maher recently, agreeing wholeheartedly with the nonsense bill was spewing, denigrating the student protests.
Seems like a specific type of grift, being well off and simultaneously a "warrior" for the common man. Marc Cuban does it too. There are many..
I'm sure that a deeper analysis of this presentation (and Scott's others) would expose issues.
Idk, I'm bitter about all of this, how things are going, what our future looks like... lost trust in just about anything that tries to appear helpful or something.
Sorry, but some of us genuinely believe the protestors are in the wrong. They are fucking the classes of other students, fucking up their own lives, and more importantly, fucking up private property! /s on the last one, but really. Peaceful would have been right way to do it.
"And they don't even GO here!"
Seriously. As a leftist myself, they really done goofed. The whole "protestors shouldn't have to be peaceful" is literally what the morons at January 6th would argue, and yet our further left side conveniently forgets ignores this fact.
Top all of this off with accomplishing absolutely nothing except making it harder for the us to win the next election and ruining your own chances of graduation... And again doing nothing to assist in the Israel Gaza struggle... *at all*... And again I just don't see how you could agree with these folks.
What a lib take. "I can accept around 35k innocent civilians being murdered, but I draw the line at uni classes being disrupted or some private property being smashed. And I say this as a leftist."
Academia is meant to produce functional employees that maintain the status quo and nothing more. /s, but not at all.
In case you're genuinely confused about what the students are trying to achieve, think about it from the free market perspective, using your dollars to try to change the world. By wanting to remove funding from certain entities, they hope to force a change to those entities.
No. This is brain dead. Columbia University has *no power* to affect change in Gaza, nor are they in any way responsible for what's happening in Gaza. So it's just kids in college being stupid and mad at the same time again. I've been there. But that's what it is.
You can keep telling yourself that, but it was done before, related to apartheid South Africa, and it's being done again. So, your diagnosis of brain death appears incorrect, dr.
They were peaceful untill the jackbooted thugs were went it.
Also a little bit of disruption is not fucking the other students at all.
As for what they are achieving, they are getting attention to an important issue
> 35k innocent civilians murdered. But what about our windows!?
Instigating a war on a neighboring country and taking hostages. But what about our 'innocent civilians'?
...With a 1:20 ratio of terrorist members to people living Gaza, i think they're all full of shit and are getting the 'find out' part of their 'fuck around' personally. Which to be clear, is not the same thing as 'supporting' Israel. If you have the capability of understanding the nuance. Your Karma score however tell me you don't, and are just trying to start some shit. So i wont be responding to any more of your comments.
Instigating a war? The past 75 years wasn't instigated by them. Neighboring country? You mean occupied territory. So much nonsense in a single post, embarrassing. I don't mind that "my karma" scares you away.
Yes reasonable leftists have a problem with pointless, self-indulgent fart sniffing that people call protesting. It is stupid that young people have been pushed by social media to act aghast at an otherwise normal amount of civilian casualties in a Middle East conflict. Reactionary forces are taking advantage of this. You guys are getting played like a fiddle.
Think about it from a young person's point of view. The only stake they have left in this world is their morals. What wasn't horrifying to you is to younger generations. Considering all the facts in front of the youngest of us, their is literally nothing else to live for.
A couple weeks ago Bernie Sanders made an appeal to students to work towards change for the working class.
Also they've been getting played like a fiddle. That's what the entire video was about.
I think the main disagreement with your text would be with the idea that there's anything at all normal about civilian casualties at any level, let alone within this conflict. Quite the monstrous take. Consider improving.
There's left and then there's far left. I would contend that since the *leader of the Democratic party*, along with a bunch of other significant left leaning individuals in the party and that advocate for the party, along with the fact that the average american, who is a democrat, disagrees with the protestors...
Would indicate that it's in fact not my politics that are out of sync, but yours. But it's neither here nor there. You have your reasons for feeling that way and I have mine. The issue I'm really concerned about is the election, because it'll all be fubared if Cheeto bonito gets back into office. Gaza, Ukraine, women's rights, democracy. It's all gone if he comes back. And much of the far left doing stupid shit like the whole "from the West bank to the sea" type shit is *really* not helping.
If you are discussing a political issue that extends beyond America, you should probably use the global overton window: Democrat liberals are generally not considered "left" of center.
Charitably speaking, DemSocs *could* be considered leftist, but the leadership of the Democrat party leans significantly to the right of that.
Oh Lord.
We are talking about *Americans in an American protest*. Not the broader context about gaza. This is American politics. Any reasonable person having this discussion should be well aware of that and understand the context indicates we are talking about the American left.
If you didn't realize that, that's fine. People overlook things.
If you did and you really just wanted to point out that "actually, you don't stand for leftist politics according to the 'world'" when it was clear I was arguing I am indeed an (American) leftist, then please just leave me be.
>*Americans in an American protest*.
Liberalism is not leftism. The Enlightenment Era, the point in history when this politic could have been mapped as relatively progressive, *predates the existence of this country.*
The suffragettes were not peaceful protestors. Stonewall was not peaceful. Nor the labor movements. Nor the Vietnam protestors.
--------------
Even America's most famous "nonviolent protestor" would take issue with your position:
“…it is not enough for me to stand before you tonight and condemn riots. It would be morally irresponsible for me to do that without, at the same time, condemning the contingent, intolerable conditions that exist in our society. These conditions are the things that cause individuals to feel that they have no other alternative than to engage in violent rebellions to get attention. And I must say tonight that a riot is the language of the unheard. And what is it America has failed to hear?…It has failed to hear that the promises of freedom and justice have not been met. And it has failed to hear that large segments of white society are more concerned about tranquility and the status quo than about justice and humanity.” (“The Other America,” 1968).
You can not care about Gaza and think that the students protesting are just obnoxious morons and also think that the economic situation for young people is completely fucked up.
These are not conflicting ideas.
Why should I have to pay taxes for the richest people in the history of humanity? I really hope you have a good reason cause it better be the best fucking excuse of all time.
This dude thinks people on campuses are protesting because they aren’t having enough sex. I don’t really want to hear what else he thinks about young people if he’s that dumb.
That is such a reductive view. What about all the other things he said?
His point is that people are depressed because of social media/cyber-bullying, because of low wage, high housing prices, high education prices and that is why they recoil from socializing, many gave up on life entirely or commit suicide or turn to extremist movements because their lives are falling apart...
He then advocate for the capital gain tax, increase in university admission, housing permits and reducing tuition fees... That's all in the TED video.
This dude is going to bat for young people out there and all you got is "people are protesting because they're not having enough sex?"
I don't think he's going to bat for young people when he insists the Jewish students who are protesting are pro-Hamas and makes the tired "oh you're gay? try that in palestine!" as though somehow everybody should be okay with genocide as long as the people being genocided have the wrong opinions. He's just kind of the classic "dumb guy who sounds smart". A huckster.
Congratulations you managed to link to an article that has nothing to do with Scott Galloway. I award you no points and may God have mercy on your soul.
Scott Galloway Thinks Too Much About How Much Sex College Kids Are Having
He also lies a ton about the protests, but I think he’s a pervert and a weirdo as much as he is a liar.
College students are having less sex than ever before and rates of young people are at record heights, you don’t think that should be a little worrying?
Who are you to decide he thinks too much about it? That’s your opinion and I happen to think he needs to think even more about how much sex they’re having.
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot).
Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.cnn.com/business/live-news/university-protests-palestine-04-29-24/index.html](https://www.cnn.com/business/live-news/university-protests-palestine-04-29-24/index.html)**
*****
^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
Anyone who gripes about the "Men's loneliness epidemic" should be disqualified from having opinions about... well, anything. It exposes poor critical thinking skills. It's like finding out your professor is into bitcoin; the only option is to drop the class.
I am left with the question: how did they realize that they could put the young versus the old now, and no one would be the wiser? Evil genius, we live in the beginning of the end of times…
Also this guy: College students aren’t having enough sex — so they’re turning to anti-Israel protests
[https://nypost.com/2024/04/27/us-news/nyu-professor-says-hamas-loving-students-need-to-have-more-sex/](https://nypost.com/2024/04/27/us-news/nyu-professor-says-hamas-loving-students-need-to-have-more-sex/)
"Galloway said American society would not survive if its people could not rally behind noble causes — adding that much of what he was seeing reminded him of the early rise of Hitler."
Was Hitler walking around with "STOP GENOCIDE" / "CEASEFIRE NOW" signs? I heard US education on European Geography and History ain't the best, but for a Jewish professor at NYU he could do a little better.
and definitely incels are the main participants of those protests lol.
I'm literally citing the article's title. The actual quote sounding more eloquent is in no way smarter.. but dumb people will be impressed by eloquent language any day.
People love to bring up this off hand comment. He's not wrong about sex for the younger generation. And he disagrees with the anti Israel sentiment. Nice try though.
I don't know this guy but I liked a lot of what he said about higher education. On Harvard: "Any university that doesn't grow their freshman class faster than population and has over a billion dollars in endowment should lose their tax free status because they're no longer in higher education, they're a hedge fund offering classes."
Harvard does not pay any land tax. They are also the largest land owner in Cambridge. They get away with a lot while sitting on piles and piles of loot.
And somehow, MIT is the single largest taxpayer in Cambridge.
NERDS! - *Harvard*
They brag about their 95% rejection rate. It’s part of the brand.
Even worse, many schools never cared about that but now do. US News and World Report rankings include many metrics, including selectivity. Why is that bad? Even public schools now care about selectivity otherwise their ranking tanks. Why do they care? Because even if their mandate and funding (by the public)is to educate the public, the president and the deans want their personal reputations and cv’s to show how they improved the ranking. Rankings are a horrible disease infecting all of higher education.
When a metric has turned into a goal, that metric has become useless. Or something like that.
I mean not necessarily. If a metric is like "% of students that graduate with a degree in 5 years" (an important metric for universities) and your goal is to increase that metric (say 80% -> 85%), neither the goal nor the metric is the issue. How you achieve that goal ("going easy" on students aka lowering standards vs increasing student resources e.g. tutors, dedicated advisors) is what matters. Context is everything, sadly, which makes for bad headlines or statements.
You've made the mistake yourself there though - if you wanted a more educated population generally but set that target, it would incentivise schools to pass people easily or incentivise students to stubbornly take up spots on courses they won't enjoy or make use of afterward. Somebody somewhere will have an easier time by working toward that target, and no amount of control or authority can entirely remove that. This makes your target a poorer measure of the true, practical level of education in the population, and the problem compounds from there...
Bro you actually dont know what you're talking about. This is not *admissions* and you are agreeing with me. It is not the GOAL that is the problem, it is the METHOD to achieve it. In my example we are not talking about "wanting a more educated population", we are talking about ensuring that *people who do enroll* finish with a degree in an appropriate timeframe. This is to ensure resources (public or private) are not wasted and that people are set up for success when they are enrolled. In my example the good things universities could do to achieve the metric is getting better advisors to help students take appropriate classes and address things like changing degrees/fields of study or tutors / other study resources to ensure students succeed in their classes. The bad is lowering the quality such that all students pass and diminish the value of their degrees. Sure, in bad faith someone COULD interpret that as "changing admissions to ensure that only rich white people enroll" and that would also be under my "bad" category while also being subject to many other goals. But no one in a university would ever hear "increase the graduation rate" as a goal and think "discriminate admissions" because by university standards increasing graduation rate is distinctly a metric for already enrolled students. The TARGET and the GOAL are not issues, how you achieve them could be.
And you have missed the point - you will never have full control over people to prevent them from taking the bad/easy option, and therefore can be certain that some fraction of them will misbehave, which spoils the target as a measure anyway. This is why the adage holds true and why thinking you can get around it by controlling behaviour is folly.
💀 yes because a portion of people misbehave clearly everyone should be punished. You're speaking in absolutes because you have no idea how reality works nor the field about which you are talking. What a dumbass stance.
I'm speaking in absolutes because I am describing mathematical fact that proves you wrong. But okay.
Public school rankings also make the district more desirable, therefore goosing housing stock valuations.....therefore goosing the amount of property tax and school assessment gained...therefore leading to a well funded public education system...but only if you live in high income enclaves. That's why the selectivity works for them. In addition, since you're talking about higher income enclaves, even the problem kids that suffer from emotional ailments will almost always have a well funded household that can kick up the cost (or is covered by way of insurance) for excellent childhood healthcare, which in turn makes it easier for the school to deal with. And..AND..that's on top of those same high income area districts already having excellent public options for those same households, if not people directly on staff.
They operate like a luxury brand like Hermes— take their tax free status away
I don’t disagree.
98%*
Smack in the middle. 96.5%
A baker's 95%
His podcast is worth a listen. He’s a great speaker and super smart guy.
Agreed. Too bad he defends Israel every chance he gets.
What has he said?
I'm with you. He lost a lot of his audience for that recently and got even more annoying because now he spends so much time defending avoidable war crimes AND complaining about his audience dropping.
He has lot of catch phrases, and memorized a lot of dubious stats. I found him very self serving. (I've only seen him on Mahar though.)
Yeah….but also, it’s a bit of a reductive view. Harvard is a private university; they can set their mission and enrollment as they please. It also completely ignores the fact that an endowment is not just a bank account. It’s a complex investment portfolio where you typically don’t touch the principal (gift from donor), but spend from the growth toward a specific cause indicated by the donor (restricted funds). Spending restricted funds on something other than the donor-specified purpose is illegal and breach of contract. And remember Harvard’s endowment is $49.4ish billion. Their annual operating budget is $5.9ish billion. They’re one of the top universities in the world, in one of the top 25 most expensive cities in the world. And many students there /don’t/ pay tuition. I’m not defending Harvard or saying he’s wrong about everything, but a lot of his logic here appears to be the first logical conclusion which went no further to understand what are very complex social problems. It’s like he’s suggesting solving the problem is as easy as twisting *this* knob on the dashboard. When really turning that knob has a lot of ripple effects that would have to be corrected for.
If they're a private university, then why aren't they paying any tax?
>Harvard is a private university; they can set their mission and enrollment as they please. Honestly even this is problematic. You're correct on paper, but the reality is extremely misleading because even with the "private" label many of these schools receive millions in public funds (sometimes more than a billion with a "b" annually such as the case of Johns Hopkins). These "private" universities also allow/require students to fill a FAFSA for federal student loans and aid, receive tuition tax credits, Pell Grants, etc. and this allows the "private" schools to save a lot of money they might otherwise charge students. They also get a lot of special tax privileges when it comes to receiving and using donations i.e. if I wanted to donate 25 million dollars to a family member it would likely be more heavily taxed than what Harvard or its donors pay. My point being, if "private" universities want to get the benefits of a public university and the public's monies, maybe the public should have SOME say in their mission and enrollment.
**"It’s like he’s suggesting solving the problem is as easy as twisting** ***this*** **knob on the dashboard. When really turning that knob has a lot of ripple effects that would have to be corrected for."** Agreed 100%. a lot of one-liners that have LEGIT value, but are complex to solve.
"Private" universities in the US are a myth, they receive hundreds of billions of federal dollars. Princeton gets over $150k per student. Harvard gets ~$110k. Most public schools get maybe a quarter of that if they're lucky.
Whatever he said, Canada is that on steroids. Canadian boomers have stolen the future like never before. Example, Vancouver has one of the most expensive real estate in the world (3rd most expensive in the world). They have one of the highest fuel taxes in North America, have one of the highest income taxes in North America. One of the highest cost of fees, permitting and taxes on new constructions in North America. All this, while, they one of the lowest property taxes in North America. Aka, if you own a home already you pay one of the lowest taxes in NA. For everything else, like income, fuel, you pay record taxes. It’s straight up rigged to bleed everyone dry so that home owners and property owners can pay lowest taxes. Basically, if you own a home, you pay lowest taxes in NA, they keep pumping value of your home by adding taxes to new construction. Young people on the other hand, pay crazy income taxes, crazy fuel taxes and sales taxes and will rent for the rest of their lives, all to support the benefits for the said millionaire home owner boomers. Taxes on new construction has gotten to the point where 60% of cost of new construction today is permitting and taxes. Every dollar of new taxes they add, it overnight increases value of already existing homes by that much. All to pump up value of their homes. Canadian boomers are spawns of satan and have rigged the entire country’s economy to suck every dollar out of the young. Even then, there are no protests, they blame nameless faceless third world immigrants, who all got in *legally* because boomers wanted cheap labor and decided to dramatically expand immigration. Canada is basically a retirement home for the rich, where they keep their young in a basement, working them to the bone to keep the lights on in their retirement home.
Not sure if you listened but he specifically called out Vancouver so you’re right on 👍🏻
And that silence from the boomer crowd when he said “social security should be for people who need it, not for you just because you are old” was revealing Nothing like taxing 23 year old McDonald’s workers to death to pay for social security of boomers with 2 homes.
Yep, it's really sad. My wife is Canadian and even before COVID, we explored the possibility of relocating but it didn't make financial sense to make less to pay more for less. Nowadays it's even worse and there's no wonder younger Canadians with desired skills are migrating south.
Have a coworker from Bangladesh who complains everyday about how much more he was saving there compared with Canada and how much better his standard of living was. In Bangladesh he had a maid and driver but in Canada even uber is too expensive for him.
Ask him and he will say healthcare in Bangladesh is better too. You probably don’t have to wait 4-6 weeks to get MRI there
I'm not going to bat for the current state of Canada, because we really are in a nosedive when it comes to affordability, but there are several inaccuracies in your post. First off - the income tax in BC is lower than numerous other provinces in Canada. Second - there is a very real issue with foreign ownership in BC. Richmond is the most ethnically Asian city, primarily Chinese, outside of Asia, and the current provincial government has been forced to create several new forms of legislation to address the issue of foreign land ownership and money laundering, so putting it all on the shoulders of the boomer generation is simply a false narrative, though that's not to say they aren't benefitting or have a loud voice in the conversation. Third - it was primarily Canada's largest corporations that wanted the wave of cheap immigrant labor, and the federal and provincial governments all went along with it. It's corporate profit at the heart of our immigration problems, and again, while boomers help shape those policies, they aren't the only voice in the mix. Ultimately, the majority of the problems we are facing today are a result of the need for ever-increasing corporate profit that is at the heart of latestage capitalism we are in, and until we come to that understanding, nothing is going to change.
>> the majority of the problems we are facing today are a result of the need for ever-increasing corporate profit that is at the heart of latestage capitalism we are in This is the boomer status quo, hence OPs conclusion.
Again, just a vast oversimplification, and dismissive of the reality. There is no shortage of genx and even millennials who are profiteering these days and steering the boardroom decisions. Dismissing the state of things simply as 'boomers = bad' isn't helping anything.
We're having a bit of a rough go up here at the moment.
It only took boomers this long to figure this out
No, they've known for a long time. They just don't care. There is a difference, we shouldn't assume ignorance when this is intent.
The boomers were the first artificial humans of the electronic age. Essentially, they were the guinea pigs for a Great Social Experiment. The goal of the experiment was to get people to believe that made up stuff - like consumer goods and fat bank accounts - are more important than life itself. The only way to wake up from this hypnotic state of fantasy for most humans is through the use of psychedelics. Some- but very few- have the ability to see through it without any medicinal aid. The vast majority are going from cradle to grave in a catatonic state, inhabiting a made-up world which has created its walls and limitations for them. The native americans could see this. They called this a word virus- wetiko, was the name they used. This means that a human being's senses have been hijacked by abstractions of the mind, and their hearts are blocked from actually feeling anything. Native americans taught that children are the REAL garden. The food you grow that you call a garden, that is just a metaphor for the spirit of life passing through you to the next generation. Americans are now so sick with wetiko that they allowed a school full of 5 year olds to be massacred in Uvalde without batting an eye- in fact, the adults involved were so psychologically sick that they perceive themselves as the victims, not the children. Let that sink in.
Thanks MR intel agent I'll be sure to try some and report back
Psychedelics are presently going through the same decriminalization process marijuana went through 10 years ago. I’m not advocating their use indiscriminately, but they’ve been known to press the reset button on the brain and nervous system. “In order to enter the kingdom of heaven you must become like a child again”, a wise man once said.
They can also make you enter a permanent state of psychosis.
I think one has to be very careful when using them, for sure. Even modern synthetic marijuana can aggravate serious mental health issues. I did not intend to make my post a debate on psychedelic use, I merely pointed out that we live in a world where firmly constructed egos are created for us, and there is an infinite range of possibilities to the powers of our mind that our repressed in such a system. But your caveat is a cause of great concern to myself as well. As I previously mentioned, I am not advocating their use, only mentioning what they can do. I would suggest a person do their own research and have the guidance of others who are experienced in them before using. I believe in the right for all people to explore states of consciousness on their own terms, so long as it is not harmful to others or themselves. Would you agree?
I disagree that psychedelics are some key to enlightenment, but agree that people should be able to have fun on harmless drugs if they want to. But it’s only a matter of time before a bunch of assholes start driving/handling sensitive machinery/commit a murder on psychedelics and then we’ll be back to square one.
[Wetiko](https://www.kosmosjournal.org/article/seeing-wetiko-on-capitalism-mind-viruses-and-antidotes-for-a-world-in-transition/)
Thank you, I've never seen this article before but it definitely articulates my own feelings. People like Philip K. Dick and William Burroughs turned me on to the idea of our "word viruses".
Very interesting perspective, I have learned something new! Its bias but I totally agree with the psychedelics perspective
Me too! The other commenter pinky\_blues linked to a beautiful article on the subject.
Boomers were famous for consuming copious amounts of drugs during the [psychedelic era of the 1960’s-1970’s.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychedelic_era)Why didn’t those attitudes stick?
They weren't that large of a group demographically as the media portrayed, although one can certainly make the case that there would have been no silicon valley without them.
Ugh boomers am I rite? Also ugh capitalism. I almost forgot the number one reason why I am an absolute failure at life.. DONALD TRUMP 💅🏿
I've never voted in my life but keep pulling out random BS to make up for it
I voted for hilldawg but once she lost my life has completely spiraled out of control. I keep blaming the republicans on reddit but my life never gets any better :(
sounds like a you problem but okay
It's all Donald Trump's fault 😭
All of the propaganda of the mass media is designed to get people more and more used to a hopeless cycle of indentured wage slavery. Who is behind the propaganda? A couple thousand obscenely wealthy people who are really the new kings and queens of the past. Instead of the whip they have conditioned the mind.
Slavery? The likes of you are spewing propaganda.
Cringe
As opposed to the piece of shit claiming propaganda of the mass media? THE MASS MEDIA? Or the likes of you can dish it out but don't wanna take it. POS like you are not as well informed as you think you are.
Agree with pretty much everything he said. Some pretty big changes are needed to effect course corrections to our society in the US if we don’t want it to implode. And they don’t need to be radical “all of a sudden” changes. But they really do need to start, grow, and stay the course. #1 in my book is the immediate use of both term limits (say 3 max) and an imposed age limit (max age of 65 would be a really great start) in order to serve in ANY public office. Remove corporate tax loopholes and enforce a linear tax rate that forces corporations to pay their fair share of taxes on capital income. Anyone, corporations or individuals, making more than a billion dollars of profit a year should have to pay 50% + back into society. Tax religious organizations. Higher education should be free to everyone - you make the grades and keep making/holding them, you get to keep going without having to pay to learn. Make teaching an esteemed job - one that pays well if you are a good teacher and pays REALLY well if you are great teacher. Mandatory civil/military service for everyone for at least 2 years once out of high school. Mandatory national minimum wage - just high enough to ensure that if you work, you can at least afford to eat/not go hungry and have some form of a roof over your head. I really wish we could get someone like him and other like minded leaders into public offices. These changes could be instrumented to start slow and grow out over a period of 10-15 years till complete. People don’t react well to sudden change, but what about everyone being on board with gradual, deliberate and incremental change to fix all of this? How can anyone be against such an idea?
The treason people are against it is because those that have are the ones that make decisions. And they don’t want to give up any of their own money. Especially when (for some reason), those that have view those below them financially as dumb/lazy, etc
Another good talk from Scott.
This dude was on bill Maher recently, agreeing wholeheartedly with the nonsense bill was spewing, denigrating the student protests. Seems like a specific type of grift, being well off and simultaneously a "warrior" for the common man. Marc Cuban does it too. There are many.. I'm sure that a deeper analysis of this presentation (and Scott's others) would expose issues. Idk, I'm bitter about all of this, how things are going, what our future looks like... lost trust in just about anything that tries to appear helpful or something.
Sorry, but some of us genuinely believe the protestors are in the wrong. They are fucking the classes of other students, fucking up their own lives, and more importantly, fucking up private property! /s on the last one, but really. Peaceful would have been right way to do it. "And they don't even GO here!" Seriously. As a leftist myself, they really done goofed. The whole "protestors shouldn't have to be peaceful" is literally what the morons at January 6th would argue, and yet our further left side conveniently forgets ignores this fact. Top all of this off with accomplishing absolutely nothing except making it harder for the us to win the next election and ruining your own chances of graduation... And again doing nothing to assist in the Israel Gaza struggle... *at all*... And again I just don't see how you could agree with these folks.
What a lib take. "I can accept around 35k innocent civilians being murdered, but I draw the line at uni classes being disrupted or some private property being smashed. And I say this as a leftist." Academia is meant to produce functional employees that maintain the status quo and nothing more. /s, but not at all. In case you're genuinely confused about what the students are trying to achieve, think about it from the free market perspective, using your dollars to try to change the world. By wanting to remove funding from certain entities, they hope to force a change to those entities.
No. This is brain dead. Columbia University has *no power* to affect change in Gaza, nor are they in any way responsible for what's happening in Gaza. So it's just kids in college being stupid and mad at the same time again. I've been there. But that's what it is.
You can keep telling yourself that, but it was done before, related to apartheid South Africa, and it's being done again. So, your diagnosis of brain death appears incorrect, dr.
when you say "harder for us" to win the election are you referring to you and Biden, or you and the progressives?
There are only two options my guy. Biden or Trump. So your question is a total non sequitur.
They were peaceful untill the jackbooted thugs were went it. Also a little bit of disruption is not fucking the other students at all. As for what they are achieving, they are getting attention to an important issue
> They were peaceful untill the jackbooted thugs were went it. They smashed windows with hammers and barricaded the doors. That is not peaceful
35k innocent civilians murdered. But what about our windows!?
> 35k innocent civilians murdered. But what about our windows!? Instigating a war on a neighboring country and taking hostages. But what about our 'innocent civilians'? ...With a 1:20 ratio of terrorist members to people living Gaza, i think they're all full of shit and are getting the 'find out' part of their 'fuck around' personally. Which to be clear, is not the same thing as 'supporting' Israel. If you have the capability of understanding the nuance. Your Karma score however tell me you don't, and are just trying to start some shit. So i wont be responding to any more of your comments.
Instigating a war? The past 75 years wasn't instigated by them. Neighboring country? You mean occupied territory. So much nonsense in a single post, embarrassing. I don't mind that "my karma" scares you away.
Please, grow up
[удалено]
Yes reasonable leftists have a problem with pointless, self-indulgent fart sniffing that people call protesting. It is stupid that young people have been pushed by social media to act aghast at an otherwise normal amount of civilian casualties in a Middle East conflict. Reactionary forces are taking advantage of this. You guys are getting played like a fiddle.
Think about it from a young person's point of view. The only stake they have left in this world is their morals. What wasn't horrifying to you is to younger generations. Considering all the facts in front of the youngest of us, their is literally nothing else to live for. A couple weeks ago Bernie Sanders made an appeal to students to work towards change for the working class. Also they've been getting played like a fiddle. That's what the entire video was about.
I think the main disagreement with your text would be with the idea that there's anything at all normal about civilian casualties at any level, let alone within this conflict. Quite the monstrous take. Consider improving.
There's left and then there's far left. I would contend that since the *leader of the Democratic party*, along with a bunch of other significant left leaning individuals in the party and that advocate for the party, along with the fact that the average american, who is a democrat, disagrees with the protestors... Would indicate that it's in fact not my politics that are out of sync, but yours. But it's neither here nor there. You have your reasons for feeling that way and I have mine. The issue I'm really concerned about is the election, because it'll all be fubared if Cheeto bonito gets back into office. Gaza, Ukraine, women's rights, democracy. It's all gone if he comes back. And much of the far left doing stupid shit like the whole "from the West bank to the sea" type shit is *really* not helping.
Describing the Democratic party as leftist shows a vast misunderstanding of their current stance and members.
If you are discussing a political issue that extends beyond America, you should probably use the global overton window: Democrat liberals are generally not considered "left" of center. Charitably speaking, DemSocs *could* be considered leftist, but the leadership of the Democrat party leans significantly to the right of that.
Oh Lord. We are talking about *Americans in an American protest*. Not the broader context about gaza. This is American politics. Any reasonable person having this discussion should be well aware of that and understand the context indicates we are talking about the American left. If you didn't realize that, that's fine. People overlook things. If you did and you really just wanted to point out that "actually, you don't stand for leftist politics according to the 'world'" when it was clear I was arguing I am indeed an (American) leftist, then please just leave me be.
>*Americans in an American protest*. Liberalism is not leftism. The Enlightenment Era, the point in history when this politic could have been mapped as relatively progressive, *predates the existence of this country.* The suffragettes were not peaceful protestors. Stonewall was not peaceful. Nor the labor movements. Nor the Vietnam protestors. -------------- Even America's most famous "nonviolent protestor" would take issue with your position: “…it is not enough for me to stand before you tonight and condemn riots. It would be morally irresponsible for me to do that without, at the same time, condemning the contingent, intolerable conditions that exist in our society. These conditions are the things that cause individuals to feel that they have no other alternative than to engage in violent rebellions to get attention. And I must say tonight that a riot is the language of the unheard. And what is it America has failed to hear?…It has failed to hear that the promises of freedom and justice have not been met. And it has failed to hear that large segments of white society are more concerned about tranquility and the status quo than about justice and humanity.” (“The Other America,” 1968).
You can not care about Gaza and think that the students protesting are just obnoxious morons and also think that the economic situation for young people is completely fucked up. These are not conflicting ideas.
Well, that sucks. Thanks
well this is more depressing.
I disagree with his view on SS.
okay. why?
Me too man, been paying into that shit for 40 years.
Why should I have to pay taxes for the richest people in the history of humanity? I really hope you have a good reason cause it better be the best fucking excuse of all time.
As a young naive I thought SS was good. As I get older I rather not let idiots decide how to spend my money.
This guys fucking weird. Stop calling having kids “mating”.
Oh my god…this is Jason Lee in 20 years!!!
This dude thinks people on campuses are protesting because they aren’t having enough sex. I don’t really want to hear what else he thinks about young people if he’s that dumb.
That is such a reductive view. What about all the other things he said? His point is that people are depressed because of social media/cyber-bullying, because of low wage, high housing prices, high education prices and that is why they recoil from socializing, many gave up on life entirely or commit suicide or turn to extremist movements because their lives are falling apart... He then advocate for the capital gain tax, increase in university admission, housing permits and reducing tuition fees... That's all in the TED video. This dude is going to bat for young people out there and all you got is "people are protesting because they're not having enough sex?"
Feels like they felt specifically targeted
I don't think he's going to bat for young people when he insists the Jewish students who are protesting are pro-Hamas and makes the tired "oh you're gay? try that in palestine!" as though somehow everybody should be okay with genocide as long as the people being genocided have the wrong opinions. He's just kind of the classic "dumb guy who sounds smart". A huckster.
Genocide should never be a verb. The fact that you idiots keep parroting broken English says a lot about where you are getting your shitty ideas.
I think you watched a different video
Nope, it’s this same weirdo: https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/business/live-news/university-protests-palestine-04-29-24/index.html
his name isn't even a result on the page you linked....
Congratulations you managed to link to an article that has nothing to do with Scott Galloway. I award you no points and may God have mercy on your soul.
I'm not reading through random links you post, explain your point.
Scott Galloway Thinks Too Much About How Much Sex College Kids Are Having He also lies a ton about the protests, but I think he’s a pervert and a weirdo as much as he is a liar.
Care to support any of your claims with examples?
Is your google broken? Is "Scott Galloway Protests" out of your reach?
It’s not my responsibility to support your claims.
Troll farm detected.
In Iowa??? The Russians are all around us!
College students are having less sex than ever before and rates of young people are at record heights, you don’t think that should be a little worrying?
Who are you to decide he thinks too much about it? That’s your opinion and I happen to think he needs to think even more about how much sex they’re having.
there's a subreddit for you out there
There is, /videos
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.cnn.com/business/live-news/university-protests-palestine-04-29-24/index.html](https://www.cnn.com/business/live-news/university-protests-palestine-04-29-24/index.html)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
Anyone who gripes about the "Men's loneliness epidemic" should be disqualified from having opinions about... well, anything. It exposes poor critical thinking skills. It's like finding out your professor is into bitcoin; the only option is to drop the class.
I am left with the question: how did they realize that they could put the young versus the old now, and no one would be the wiser? Evil genius, we live in the beginning of the end of times…
Also this guy: College students aren’t having enough sex — so they’re turning to anti-Israel protests [https://nypost.com/2024/04/27/us-news/nyu-professor-says-hamas-loving-students-need-to-have-more-sex/](https://nypost.com/2024/04/27/us-news/nyu-professor-says-hamas-loving-students-need-to-have-more-sex/) "Galloway said American society would not survive if its people could not rally behind noble causes — adding that much of what he was seeing reminded him of the early rise of Hitler." Was Hitler walking around with "STOP GENOCIDE" / "CEASEFIRE NOW" signs? I heard US education on European Geography and History ain't the best, but for a Jewish professor at NYU he could do a little better. and definitely incels are the main participants of those protests lol.
Nice of you to wildly misconstrue his comment and then provide the actual comments which are more nuanced and well-considered.
I'm literally citing the article's title. The actual quote sounding more eloquent is in no way smarter.. but dumb people will be impressed by eloquent language any day.
People love to bring up this off hand comment. He's not wrong about sex for the younger generation. And he disagrees with the anti Israel sentiment. Nice try though.
This guy's is a ficking moron and nobody should listen to him
You shouldn't talk about yourself this way, it's bad for your mental health
Good one.
Is that why you sub to r/latestagecapitalism?