대학은 돈 낭비이다.

 

Doug Casey Explains Why College Is A Waste of Money

 

Casey Research,

 

I recently sat down again with Casey Research founder Doug Casey to discuss a troubling trend: the fast-rising cost of a college education. Read our conversation below to see why Doug says relying on - and paying for - today's educational paradigm "makes as much sense as entering a Model T Ford in the 24 Hours of Le Mans"…

 

Justin: Doug, I recently had an interesting conversation with my sister.

 

She told me that her financial advisor suggested she start setting aside $500 to $1,000 a month to pay for her son’s college education. That’s because a four-year college education is apparently going to cost between $400,000 and $500,000 18 years from now.

 

Her advisor clearly arrived at this figure based on how fast college tuition costs have been rising, which is about 6% per year based on my research.

 

But you have to wonder if the cost can keep rising at this rate. It seems to me that no one will go to college if it’s going to cost a half-million bucks.

 

What do you make of this trend?

 

Doug: Well, the first thing—my advice to your sister is to get a new financial advisor. I fear that she’s relying on a complete imbecile. She should fire him immediately, and for a number of reasons.

 

Number one is his assumption that the trend of higher college costs is going to continue to a totally unaffordable level. In fact, the cost/benefit ratio of going to college is already so out of whack that the whole system has to change radically. A college degree, even now, is of only marginal value; most everybody has one. And things that everybody has are devalued. You’re quite correct that colleges and universities today are dead ducks as businesses. Unless you’re going to learn a trade, like doctoring or lawyering, or you’re going for science, engineering, or math, where you need the formal discipline and where you need lab courses, it’s a total misallocation, even a waste of money to go to college today.

 

So I applaud the fact that all these colleges and universities are dead men walking, that they’re all going to go bankrupt. They are totally overrun and infested with cultural Marxists and progressives, militant leftists that are propagandizing kids with absolutely the wrong kind of values. It’s astonishing that parents are willing to pay even today’s prices to subject their kids to four years of indoctrination. So I’m glad that they’re all going bankrupt.

 

Justin: But don’t you need a college education to get ahead in life?

 

Doug: It’s not necessary to go to college. You’re likely to be corrupted, and indebt yourself like an indentured servant for many years to come. The question is: Do you want an education, or do you just want a piece of paper that says you logged the time in a classroom? These are two different things. Getting an education is strictly a matter of motivation and self-discipline, not paying money to sit in a classroom. If you’ve got half a brain, you realize that you want the knowledge, not the diploma, and there’s no necessary correlation between them. Nobody can “give” you an education; it’s something you must gain for yourself.

 

Most top universities now have their courses online. You can get an education by listening to these courses. And even when you’re driving your car, you should be playing CDs by The Teaching Company. They have the best professors in the world giving command performance lectures. And you can hear them an unlimited number of times. This is much better than listening to some also-ran drone on, while you may have cut the class, or be half asleep, or not taking good notes.

 

Technology has changed the whole landscape of education. Its cost is approaching zero, not the stratosphere, as your sister’s advisor seems to think. If the kids insist on going to college and indenturing themselves, as well as cluttering their minds with irrelevancies and false data, then they should only consider, say, Harvard, or very few schools like it. At least there the prestige, and qualifications for admission, are so high that the connections they make may compensate for the many downsides.

 

And anyway, Ray Kurzweil’s right about the Singularity, in my opinion. And he’s upped the date to when it’s going to occur to 2029, which is only 12 years from now, at which point the whole world will have changed in ways that will change the nature of life itself. So forget about saving to send your kids to college; and that goes double for your grandkids.

 

Justin: I thought the same thing, Doug.

 

You see, my sister’s advisor suggested that she and her husband set up a 529 plan, which is basically a tax-friendly way to save money for college. I asked her what would happen to the money if her son didn’t go to college. She said she could use the money to pay her for grandchildren’s college education.

 

But, like you said, the world is going to be very different 12 years from now. Who knows what it’s going to look like 40 or 50 years from now?

 

Doug: Over the next generation the world is going to change totally and unrecognizably from the way it is right now. Technological change is compounding at an exponential rate. It’s always been exponential, quite frankly. Ever since the invention of fire. But we’re now in its later stages; it’s like a Saturn rocket taking off, very slowly at first, but constantly accelerating.

 

It’s going to be fascinating and fantastic to watch what happens over the next 20 years. And relying on, and paying for, today’s educational paradigm makes as much sense as entering a Model T Ford in the 24 Hours of Le Mans.

 

Justin: I agree 100%. We’re living in very exciting times.

 

Anyway, thank you for taking the time to speak with me, Doug. It was a pleasure, as always.

 

Doug: You’re welcome.

 

-----------------------------------------------------------

 

 

캐나다 토론토의 주택 거품

 

David Rosenberg: "This Is A Bubble Of Historic Proportions"

 

 

by Tyler Durden

 

Apr 7, 2017 6:41 PM

 

 

Shortly after we remarked most recently on the unprecedented Canadian housing bubble that has migrated from Vancouver to Toronto, Gluskin Sheff's Chief Economist David Rosenberg joined the growing chorus of calls for government intervention into the Toronto housing market. In an interview on BNN, Rosenberg, who correctly called the U.S. housing bubble in 2005 when still at Merrill Lynch, said the massive deviation from historical norms has him drawing comparisons between the two situations.

 

“This bubble is on par with what we had in the States back in ’05, ’06, ’07,” he said. “We have to actually take a look at the situation. The housing market here is in a classic price bubble. If you don’t acknowledge that, you have your head in the sand.” (발췌)

 

 

----------------------------------

 

시민들의 사적인 공간, 선택, 행동, 사생활 등에 개입하는 국가는 전체주의 국가일 수밖에 없다.

 

Thursday, April 06, 2017

Why Is the State in Our Bedrooms and Living Rooms as Well as Our Bank Accounts?

 

There's a word to describe a state with unlimited power over the private lives, spaces, choices, behaviors, communications and accounts of its citizens: totalitarian.

 

A limited government is concerned with proscribing the exploitation of citizens by elites and criminals. A Totalitarian State seeks control of everything--including what goes on in the bedrooms, living rooms and minds of its citizens.

 

A recent conversation with my longtime friend G.F.B. clarified a key distinction between the public and private spheres.

 

G.F.B.'s example of the state exerting control over its citizens' private choices and behaviors in their own homes was the Prohibition of alcohol which was the federal law of the land in the U.S. from 1920 to 1933.

 

Though alcohol consumption in the home was not banned outright at the federal level, the net result of banning the manufacture and distribution of alcohol was the criminalization of everyday citizens' attempts to purchase alcohol for their home consumption.

 

A limited government's purview is actions taken in public that could harm other citizens. Drunken drivers, for example, end up killing innocent citizens. Limiting the "freedom" to drive drunk is a state action that is limited to the public sphere: if a citizen chooses to get drunk in the privacy of his own home, that's different from driving on public streets while drunk.

 

In the good old days of the early Republic, the government was focused on matters of sovereignty and defense, not what citizens were doing in their own homes or communicating in private letters. Enforcement of federal laws was largely limited to collecting tariffs and other revenues and adjudicating property disputes.

 

Central states have long had an interest in control and adjudicating property disputes, controlling every aspect of their citizens' private lives, beliefs and choices. What separated these total-control autocracies and totalitarian states from governments "of the people, by the people, for the people" was the sacrosanct civil liberties that protected the privacy and private choices of the citizens from state control.

 

The unholy alliance of "progressive" do-gooders and let-me-tell-you-how-to-live religious zealots delivered Prohibition, and a host of other "we want control of your bedroom and living room" regulations. This moral superiority was of course the height of hubris and hypocrisy, as the zealots and "progressives" were just as sinful, petty and venal as any "unenlightened" non-believer.

 

The separation of church and state was dissolved by the moral crusades in which the "morally superior" wielded the brute power of the state to punish anyone who didn't live according to the demands of the "morally superior."

 

Look, if a private citizen wants to shoot up smack in the privacy of his own home, and perhaps end his life in an overdose, that should be his right. Who authorized the state to intercede in private choices and behaviors?

 

The state may limit the "freedom" to inject others with smack, or promote the injection of smack publicly, but it has no right to impose its view of "rightness" on the choices made in the bedrooms and living rooms of private citizens.

 

The Prohibition of drugs has been an unmitigated catastrophe for those ensnared in the War on Drugs gulag and for the nation. The state has the option of educating the citizenry about the potential dangers of drugs, including alcohol and cigarettes, and limiting the sale of these drugs to minors, but its prohibitions should be limited to the public sphere.

 

Yesterday, I described how the state can steal money from your bank account before informing you that the state suspects you may owe taxes, but with no actual evidence to support this suspicion. First they steal your money, and the bank deducts an additional $100 for the hard work of digitally transferring your money to the state, then they notify you of their suspicions.

 

If this isn't Kafkaesque, then what is?

 

A limited government would be required to go through public, judicial processes to gain the authority to take money from your account. But the state doesn't need any judicial process or review; a nameless bureaucrat (and his/her computer program) simply enters your name and bank account in a "suspicious" list and the machinery of the state steals your money and then informs you after the fact of your presumed guilt.

 

There's a word to describe a state with unlimited power over the private lives, spaces, choices, behaviors, communications and accounts of its citizens: totalitarian.

 

Smith's Neofeudalism Principle #1: If the citizenry cannot replace a kleptocratic authoritarian government and/or limit the power of the financial Aristocracy at the ballot box, the nation is a democracy in name only.