Occupy Wall Street: Brilliant or Incompetent?

Spot on, So Well, I think it was predetermined that she would not be able to find a job in her career of choice. Brilliant!!!!!!

So Well wrote:










I know it is a fake photo but still thought it is funny.

Funny... but not brilliant!!!!!

There are lots of good people that are hurting. A large number have lost their jobs and many have lost their homes and need help. I hope they rise above their pain and do better. But the Occupy people are not helping these folks. Additionally, they are occupying the wrong locations. Most of these occupiers are ultra left wing unemployed bums, marxist and socialist wannabes, good time charlies, drug users and those looking for a handout, a drink, a roll in the hay and a joint. True, some are well meaning college kids that don't have a clue what life is really about; they just want to idetify with a cause. JefffL's video explains it pretty well. I agree with Archangle; they are demonstrating for a location rather than a targeted change. They should be demonstrating in front of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and congress. Wall Street shares the blame, however our debt problem and the economic uncertainty is the result of unrestrained government spending, and in a big way, the fallacy of trying to reduce fossil fuel use, restriction of energy production an exploration. So what if we are 6% of the world's population and use 24% of the world's energy? I'm damned glad! What has made us a roaring economic engine? Energy and the free market use of it. Why have Dallas, Houston, Atlanta and other southern cities become hubs of business? Primarily due to the invention of air conditioning. Before A/C, very little growth and no office buildings! Too hot! What will make us just an average country? Continued lack of a viable energy policy, the restriction and reduction of energy exploration, production, delivery and use. So, to answer the question "Brilliant or Incompetent," neither. They're anti-capitalist. In the end, they will not prevail. The silent moderate majority favors profit-based capitalism over variations of socialism and will not allow the demise of it. And I am extremely pleased the super committee failed to reach agreement, on both sides. Compromise breeds mediocrity.

... Wall Street shares the blame, however our debt problem and the economic uncertainty is the result of unrestrained government spending, and in a big way, ...

The monies and wealth siphoned off by the power hungry financiers, Wall Street bloodsuckers, morally bankrupt politicians, sleezy defense contractors and their ilk could bail this country out in no time.

So Well wrote:]

I've been having the same thought the past few weeks. A liberal arts degree in gay studies does not equal an in demand job skill.

Yeah, but, American students DON'T WANT to tackle the "hard" degrees in Science, Math, Engineering, etc. they want to take Finance, Business Management, etc. They want to go where the money is, the EASY money.

Slinky2 wrote:Yeah, but, American students DON'T WANT to tackle the "hard" degrees in Science, Math, Engineering, etc. they want to take Finance, Business Management, etc. They want to go where the money is, the EASY money.

Why not? There are thousands of mentors in the banking and finance world who the past couple of decades have shown that is the way to get rich!When our society rewards sports figures, entertainers, Wall Street investors, and all the others like them, way above what we award teachers, nurses, engineers, welders, and yes, even the gardener, why wouldn't the current college crowd want to go that direction? Our entire society has all kinds of values and priorities screwed up.

Slinky2 wrote:Yeah, but, American students DON'T WANT to tackle the "hard" degrees in Science, Math, Engineering, etc. they want to take Finance, Business Management, etc. They want to go where the money is, the EASY money.

Of course you don't mean all students. Quite a few excel in those subjects.

But in general you are correct. We could be doing much better.

The big failure is in primary and secondary education. It is largely done in government schools.

There is no doubt that non-governmental schools prepare students much better for college in those subject areas.

I went to all government schools (graduated HS 2005) and had a very high SAT score. Once in college I learned very quickly that my schools (despite giving me high grades) had not prepared me for college as well as others who went to private schools. (Fortunately I caught up quickly and graduated in the top 5% of my class.)

The "government school" problem can be attacked quickly by doing two things -

1. Eliminate the federal Department of Education and leave the funds with each state who will have responsibility.

2. The states should institute school vouchers. Parents will select the schools and use the vouchers. No government schools will be closed but they will have to compete with each other and with private institutions. Some government schools will fail and others will change and become competitive. Excellent private schools will thrive and ones that are not so excellent will fail.

NightMonkey wrote:
2. The states should institute school vouchers. Parents will select the schools and use the vouchers. No government schools will be closed but they will have to compete with each other and with private institutions. Some government schools will fail and others will change and become competitive. Excellent private schools will thrive and ones that are not so excellent will fail.

I wonder what would happen if students/parents paid the teachers directly, with bureaucrats responsible for only the physical plant.