PGT: President-Elect Donald J Trump

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by wittynickname

The biggest hurdle to higher education is cost. Democrats had plans for that in their platform, Republicans don't. Yet another example of these same groups voting against their own best interests in hopes of going back to the good old days.

The Democrats solution was to give students more money to give to colleges. The real problem is that the cost of post-secondary education has been increasing at more than twice the rate of inflation for more than 30 years now. Nobody can really give any good reason why this is something we just have to accept.

Is the quality or value of post-secondary education better than it was 40 years ago?

Why hasn't the massive increase in enrolment brought costs down, the way you would expect with economies of scale?

Why are we still using a 200 year old model of delivering education - sitting in theatres being lectured by a professor reading from his notes - when technology could dramatically reduce the costs involved?

The post-secondary education sector has deeply entrenched interests who are cling to an anachronistic model out of self-interest. Uprooting those interests is where the solution lies, not in throwing more money down the rat-hole.

[photon]

Trump profits from Carrier's parent company. Not a lot, but some.

https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...nt/p45/a295936

He also has much larger investments (up to $1 million) with Apple and Ford. He criticized Ford for plans to ship jobs, and has talked with Apple about creating tax incentives and large tax cuts to get Apple to move jobs.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Weird. I heard the opposite that tall people die sooner. The heart and other organs have to work harder to keep a larger mass alive. Just anecdotally, I rarely ever see someone over 6' tall and over 80 years old.

That's because of nutrition 80 years ago limited the number of people who grew to 6 feet tall.

[ae118]

Apparently tall people generally live shorter (....) lives even when you account for nutrition and sex. So although in life tall men tend to make more money and have several less tangible advantages, in the end tall people of both sexes also (it's hypothesized) have organs that work harder and more cells which can become cancerous. I actually saw something about this just the other day.

[Fozzie_DeBear]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

There's geography, and then there's the kinds of jobs that are being created. Telling a 50 year old who used to work at the local plant that he can go to university and become a software developer, or maybe become a personal trainer or a waiter at an upscale restaurant, isn't much help.

We need much better systems in place to identify skills that are in demand, and get training for adults who want to move into those jobs. We can't rely on the market to do this, as companies no longer take on the role of training employees. We need information and road-maps shared on a national level.

LinkedIn is doing some interesting research into this challenge

https://economicgraphchallenge.linkedin.com/details

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

The Democrats solution was to give students more money to give to colleges. The real problem is that the cost of post-secondary education has been increasing at more than twice the rate of inflation for more than 30 years now. Nobody can really give any good reason why this is something we just have to accept.

This was on both parties. Both parties have influence on how these bills are drafted and the language that goes in them. If it were up to the Democrats they would have forgiven student loans a long time ago and have regulated education. The Republicans love them some expensive education as it leads to massive interest payments on loans, so they have done nothing to change a system that works in their favor. Seriously, my student loans are another mortgage payment. Between my wife and I we could afford another house if it weren’t for getting raped on our student loans. Someone will have to explain why the interest rate on my student loan is twice what my mortgage is? They are gouging students because they can get away with it. It is very difficult to get ahead without education. Most people can’t get education without taking out loans. Once you have them they never go away, even in bankruptcy. Education with student loans is legal enslavement.

Is the quality or value of post-secondary education better than it was 40 years ago?

It’s worse, but that is because of the quality of students. Most students can barely write at a grade eight level. Unfortunately you can’t drum them out as they are the revenue stream.

Why hasn't the massive increase in enrolment brought costs down, the way you would expect with economies of scale?

Because there is a massive administration involved with schools now. You need people to sell the programs. You need advisors to help the little darlings get through their program. You need people to help them get their student loans! You need people to listen to their complaints, because they are all special and complain about everything. And of course, you need layers and layers of bureaucracy to deal with everything. It takes a village to raise a child, and it takes a ####ing city of people to educate it!

Why are we still using a 200 year old model of delivering education - sitting in theatres being lectured by a professor reading from his notes - when technology could dramatically reduce the costs involved?

Schools are moving to other means of delivery. There are all sorts of online classes, but most people can’t learn that way. They prefer the access to the professor and the baby sitting service they provide.

You are also missing the costs associated with migrating these education services to the virtual world. It costs a lot to develop the content to deliver on the Internet. It costs a lot to license the Learning Management System for delivery. The infrastructure is expensive and you need some serious bandwidth to deliver virtual services. That ain’t cheap. You also have to find people that are capable of teaching online. It is a completely different beast and very few of the tradition instructors can deal with the challenges. It is a work in progress, but with the budgets being trimmed by state governments it is hard to try and make the changes needed.

The post-secondary education sector has deeply entrenched interests who are cling to an anachronistic model out of self-interest. Uprooting those interests is where the solution lies, not in throwing more money down the rat-hole.

Not at all true. The biggest problem was the success that University of Phoenix had in the early 2000’s. Their for-profit model changed everything and made every institution believe they could do things the same way. Schools started hiring presidents that didn’t know education and were only business people (usually bean counters or bankers) and they destroyed their schools trying to become the next UoP.

UoP was the one who introduced the whole concept of running the institution with solely adjunct faculty, a move that others thought was smart because it trimmed the bottom line. The problem is that students go to your school because of the faculty that teach in particular classes, not because you are making money. I worked at one school that used to have dozens of residential faculty, and they are now down to two. What is it exactly that you have to sell prospective students? The faculty is your product!

UoP was also the ones to commoditize education, bringing in the sales people and dedicated advisors who were responsible to push the student through and make sure they were signed up (and financed) for the next class. Other schools followed that model, bloating the administration.

Education is broken in America because they started trying to run it like a business. If they had continued to run education as an education institution, and not a used car lot, they would have been much more successful. Competition is good in some industries, but basic human services like education is not one of them. The US is headed down the ####ter because they treat people like a profit opportunity at every turn, including education and health care. That is where the culture is broken.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

The Democrats solution was to give students more money to give to colleges. The real problem is that the cost of post-secondary education has been increasing at more than twice the rate of inflation for more than 30 years now. Nobody can really give any good reason why this is something we just have to accept.

Is the quality or value of post-secondary education better than it was 40 years ago?

Why hasn't the massive increase in enrolment brought costs down, the way you would expect with economies of scale?

Why are we still using a 200 year old model of delivering education - sitting in theatres being lectured by a professor reading from his notes - when technology could dramatically reduce the costs involved?

The post-secondary education sector has deeply entrenched interests who are cling to an anachronistic model out of self-interest. Uprooting those interests is where the solution lies, not in throwing more money down the rat-hole.

Commodification of knowledge, dude. It's the same reason we have paywalls on academic journals/studies and are therefore reliant on having the information disseminated to us instead of being able to go right to the source.

[photon]

Trump's establishing a Strategic and Policy Forum to advise him on domestic economic matters made up of the establishment.

Stephen A. Schwarzman (forum chairman), chairman, CEO, and co-founder of Blackstone;
Paul Atkins, CEO, Patomak Global Partners, LLC, former commissioner of the Securities and Exchange Commission;
Mary Barra, chairwoman and CEO, General Motors;
Toby Cosgrove, CEO, Cleveland Clinic;
Jamie Dimon, chairman and CEO, JPMorgan Chase & Co;
Larry Fink, chairman and CEO, BlackRock;
Bob Iger, chairman and CEO, The Walt Disney Company;
Rich Lesser, president and CEO, Boston Consulting Group;
Doug McMillon, president and CEO, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.;
Jim McNerney, former chairman, president, and CEO, Boeing;
Adebayo “Bayo” Ogunlesi, chairman and managing partner, Global Infrastructure Partners;
Ginni Rometty, chairwoman, president, and CEO, IBM;
Kevin Warsh, Shepard Family distinguished visiting fellow in economics, Hoover Institute, former member of the board of governors of the Federal Reserve System;
Mark Weinberger, global chairman and CEO, EY;
Jack Welch, former chairman and CEO, General Electric;
Daniel Yergin, Pulitzer Prize winner, vice chairman of IHS Markit;

https://theintercept.com/2016/12/02/...-donald-trump/

-----

EDIT: A big chunk of Trump's debt might be up for sale.

Ladder Capital Corp (LADR.N), a real estate investment trust which has bankrolled much of U.S. President-elect Donald Trump's property development, is exploring the possibility of a sale, according to people familiar with the matter.

The move comes as Ladder grapples with new regulations making selling on mortgages more difficult. Founded in 2008, it has been one of the key lenders that Trump has turned to after his relations with major Wall Street banks soured following some of his business bankruptcies in the 1990s.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-la...-idUSKBN13R276

Hm, wonder if any foreign state banks might be interested.

Also talks a bit about changes in regulations, with Trump putting people in to change or dismantle regulations around lending that's another area where he's in a position to directly influence regulations that could benefit him.

[GGG]

The value of education is certification from professional bodies and the business communities recognizing that certification not the faculty. That APEGA and the oil businesses recognize the U of C is what gives the engineering program and the degree its value.

The Faculty only matters in cutting edge fields. For the vast majority of university graduates who taught them does not matter.

[photon]

Trump makes first call from a US president or president-elect to Taiwan leadership in 37 years, unaware of or not caring about China's position that Taiwan is part of China.

The call is the first time a US president has directly spoken with Taiwan's leadership in more than 30 years. The US suspended formal diplomatic relations with Taiwan in 1979 after establishing a One China position in an effort to establish diplomatic channels with Beijing.

"The United States of America acknowledges the Chinese position that there is but one China and Taiwan is part of China," the One China principle states.

Analysts were quick to point out that the phone call will likely infuriate Beijing.

"Trump has phone call w Taiwan President, 1st by US Pres or Pres-elect since 1979," goepolitical expert Ian Bremmer, president of Eurasia Group, tweeted on Friday. "Beijing will be absolutely incensed."

"Trump almost surely unaware of Taiwan-China sensitivities before taking President's call," Bremmer added. "They don't yet have Asia expertise on team."

Evan Medeiros, former Asia director at the White House national security council, told the Financial Times "the Chinese leadership will see this as a highly provocative action, of historic proportions."

“Regardless if it was deliberate or accidental, this phone call will fundamentally change China’s perceptions of Trump’s strategic intentions for the negative," he said. "With this kind of move, Trump is setting a foundation of enduring mistrust and strategic competition for US-China relations."

http://www.businessinsider.com/trump...-china-2016-12

[nik-]

He also ####ed up his call to Pakistan too. Basically commenting on them as if they were his new hotel property (granted the only source is the Pakistani government).

https://www.theatlantic.com/internat...sharif/509327/

Prime Minister Muhammad Nawaz Sharif called President-elect USA Donald Trump and felicitated him on his victory. President Trump said Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif you have a very good reputation. You are a terrific guy. You are doing amazing work which is visible in every way. I am looking forward to see you soon. As I am talking to you Prime Minister, I feel I am talking to a person I have known for long. Your country is amazing with tremendous opportunities. Pakistanis are one of the most intelligent people. I am ready and willing to play any role that you want me to play to address and find solutions to the outstanding problems. It will be an honor and I will personally do it. Feel free to call me any time even before 20th January that is before I assume my office.

On being invited to visit Pakistan by the Prime Minister, Mr. Trump said that he would love to come to a fantastic country, fantastic place of fantastic people. Please convey to the Pakistani people that they are amazing and all Pakistanis I have known are exceptional people, said Mr. Donald Trump.

http://www.dawn.com/news/1299643/tru...nding-problems

India, as expected, isn't too thrilled about the help Trump is offering to Pakistan on their outstanding problems.

[photon]

Please make the SoS decision soon.

And as if 2016 couldn't get any more absurd, we've got Sarah Palin lecturing Republicans to remember what it is Republicans stand for.

When government steps in arbitrarily with individual subsidies, favoring one business over others, it sets inconsistent, unfair, illogical precedent. Meanwhile, the invisible hand that best orchestrates a free people’s free enterprise system gets amputated. Then, special interests creep in and manipulate markets. Republicans oppose this, remember? Instead, we support competition on a level playing field, remember? Because we know special interest crony capitalism is one big fail.

http://www.youngcons.com/sarah-palin...ny-capitalism/

[Swift]

Originally Posted by photon

Trump makes first call from a US president or president-elect to Taiwan leadership in 37 years, unaware of or not caring about China's position that Taiwan is part of China.

The call is the first time a US president has directly spoken with Taiwan's leadership in more than 30 years. The US suspended formal diplomatic relations with Taiwan in 1979 after establishing a One China position in an effort to establish diplomatic channels with Beijing.

"The United States of America acknowledges the Chinese position that there is but one China and Taiwan is part of China," the One China principle states.

Analysts were quick to point out that the phone call will likely infuriate Beijing.

"Trump has phone call w Taiwan President, 1st by US Pres or Pres-elect since 1979," goepolitical expert Ian Bremmer, president of Eurasia Group, tweeted on Friday. "Beijing will be absolutely incensed."

"Trump almost surely unaware of Taiwan-China sensitivities before taking President's call," Bremmer added. "They don't yet have Asia expertise on team."

Evan Medeiros, former Asia director at the White House national security council, told the Financial Times "the Chinese leadership will see this as a highly provocative action, of historic proportions."

“Regardless if it was deliberate or accidental, this phone call will fundamentally change China’s perceptions of Trump’s strategic intentions for the negative," he said. "With this kind of move, Trump is setting a foundation of enduring mistrust and strategic competition for US-China relations."

http://www.businessinsider.com/trump...-china-2016-12

To be fair to the orange faced cockbag, he didn't actually make the call. The Taiwanese president likely saw an opening and Trump took it without doing any research whatsoever, but of course that last part is to be expected.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Guess she didn't get a cabinet spot.

Another conservative is calling “crony capitalism” on Donald Trump’s deal with Carrier, albeit an unexpected one — Sarah Palin.

In an op-ed for the website Young Conservatives, the former Alaska governor allowed that the details behind the manufacturer’s decision to keep some 1,000 jobs in Indiana at the president-elect’s behest, rather than move them to Mexico, are not yet clear. But touting the value of free markets, Palin signaled her disapproval if it was a case of “political intrusion using a stick or carrot to bribe or force one individual business to do what politicians insist.”

“When government steps in arbitrarily with individual subsidies, favoring one business over others, it sets inconsistent, unfair, illogical precedent,” she asserted.

And in an apparent jab at Trump, whom she famously endorsed in a rambling speech earlier this year, she asked: “Republicans oppose this, remember? Instead, we support competition on a level playing field, remember? Because we know special interest crony capitalism is one big fail.”

The op-ed is not subtle: Palin described such government intervention as a “hallmark of corruption” and “socialism,” and then compared it to policies of the Obama administration, which she regularly rails against.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/1...italism-232139

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by GGG

The value of education is certification from professional bodies and the business communities recognizing that certification not the faculty. That APEGA and the oil businesses recognize the U of C is what gives the engineering program and the degree its value.

There is some truth to this, but accreditation by external bodies covers a lot of issues, and a big one of those, is qualified faculty. You can't get accreditation without meeting the specific criteria of qualified faculty, number of resident faculty, curriculum (which the faculty is usually creating or influences greatly), etc.

If you're looking for value of the degree, that comes from the reputation an institution garners from the success of its previous graduates. The success of those previous graduates is based on their performance in the workplace and how well their education serves them as being a productive employee. This is why some institutions, like Harvard, have an impeccable reputation and others have a poor one, like UoP. This has long been my argument with administration who just see students as a revenue stream. Your reputation is only as good as the students you produce. Oh, and the production of those quality students rests directly on the shoulders of the faculty.

The Faculty only matters in cutting edge fields. For the vast majority of university graduates who taught them does not matter.

Maybe in Canada, where you choice is greatly limited. But here in the US, where there are over 4,000 universities and colleges, the deciding factor for a lot of students is the faculty they get to learn under and the advantage they will have coming out of school. Believe it or not, not all students

[photon]

Trump now tweeting about the criticism of his call with Taiwan, this should go well.

The President of Taiwan CALLED ME today to wish me congratulations on winning the Presidency. Thank you!

Reports were that someone on Trump's team initiated things, and AP reports that the call was arranged ahead of time according to presidential spokesperson in Taiwan.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-us...-idUSKBN13S02N

So the response to a diplomatic issue is "they started it", I'm sure pinning it on Taiwan's president really improves things.

He's not done there

Interesting how the U.S. sells Taiwan billions of dollars of military equipment but I should not accept a congratulatory call.

And China's imposed sanctions because of those sales. They sell old defensive equipment to Taiwan as part of a system to keep peace, and I bet they're negotiated behind the scenes while publicly China says they're upset. If Trump would talk to the state department before doing things he'd probably be made aware of these things.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by New Era

There is some truth to this, but accreditation by external bodies covers a lot of issues, and a big one of those, is qualified faculty. You can't get accreditation without meeting the specific criteria of qualified faculty, number of resident faculty, curriculum (which the faculty is usually creating or influences greatly), etc.

If you're looking for value of the degree, that comes from the reputation an institution garners from the success of its previous graduates. The success of those previous graduates is based on their performance in the workplace and how well their education serves them as being a productive employee. This is why some institutions, like Harvard, have an impeccable reputation and others have a poor one, like UoP. This has long been my argument with administration who just see students as a revenue stream. Your reputation is only as good as the students you produce. Oh, and the production of those quality students rests directly on the shoulders of the faculty.



Maybe in Canada, where you choice is greatly limited. But here in the US, where there are over 4,000 universities and colleges, the deciding factor for a lot of students is the faculty they get to learn under and the advantage they will have coming out of school. Believe it or not, not all students

The potential Success of students is based on student quality not faculty. And research institutions faculty are selected for research potential not educational potential.

Your post basicly identifies the whole problem with education right now. Reputation of the institution is more important then teaching quality or student quality.

[driveway]

Crap, now I'm going to have to start liking Trump a little.

Any support Taiwan can get from the US to help it move towards independence is a good thing. Not just for Taiwan, but for the whole world. This place is the most progressive, and by most measures the freeest, democracy in Asia. Getting it out from under China's thumb and able to fully participate in the international community would be fantastic.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by driveway

Crap, now I'm going to have to start liking Trump a little.

Any support Taiwan can get from the US to help it move towards independence is a good thing. Not just for Taiwan, but for the whole world. This place is the most progressive, and by most measures the freeest, democracy in Asia. Getting it out from under China's thumb and able to fully participate in the international community would be fantastic.

Unless of course it leads to war, which is likely as China will not back down if they think they are losing face.

[Snuffleupagus]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

Unless of course it leads to war, which is likely as China will not back down if they think they are losing face.

War with who? Highly doubt they would wage war against there own annexed Taiwan and they wouldn't dare poke the US.

China's power is like their economy.

Smoke & Mirrors