PGT: President-Elect Donald J Trump

[Senator Clay Davis]

China is actually loving the Trump-Taiwan situation, for a pretty obvious reason: They can see just how stupid he is and easy to manipulate he's going to be. They are now negotiating with the US on the basis of whether that can get what they want in exchange for a couple Trump towers in Shanghai. And if you're Taiwan how much does that suck? Trump cares about you right up to the point China can give him better real estate deals. They are literally a reality TV show pawn right now.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by GGG

The potential Success of students is based on student quality not faculty.

And who do you think develops the potential in those students? Do you think that the bricks and mortar of the building these students sit in magically draw out the brilliance of those students, or do you think it is the faculty who share their experience and expertise on each subject and challenges the student to work beyond the constraints of their understanding or perspective?

And research institutions faculty are selected for research potential not educational potential.

Whoa! Holy moving of the goalposts, Batman. We just went from a discussion of the faults of education in general to a discussion about the faults of institutions who have a research component attached to their faculty responsibilities. That is a big difference between the two, but the fact still remains, the better faculty will draw the better positions at better schools, and as a result draw the better students.

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

Boy, you either misunderstood my post, or are misrepresenting it. I clearly stated how an institution's reputation is established, and it is all on the quality of the graduates (the quality of the student) and how they display or execute their theoretical foundations learned in school (the quality of the learning from faculty). The product is how universities are judged, and the graduates are the product. If an institution wants better quality graduates (a better product) they need to attract better faculty to work with the students and push them to realize their potential. This is why an institution like ASU made wholesale changes in their faculty and started bringing in professors like Lawrence Krauss. Your school is only as good as the faculty who teach there.

[SeeBass]

Originally Posted by photon

To be fair, it's not just the # of jobs alone, but the nature of the jobs matters as well. A $40/hr union factory job being replaced with two $15/hr service industry jobs looks like a loss to the person who had the factory job.

I would like this info to be tracked as well.

What was the average wage of the jobs lost that month- versus- average wage of new jobs started that month.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Snuffleupagus

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

That's how the First World War started, no one actually thought it would happen until they couldn't see a way out.

[SeeBass]

Originally Posted by GGG

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

I have yet to hear the words "big" describe and old man.

The big ones, mostly, die earlier.

[Fozzie_DeBear]

Originally Posted by Snuffleupagus

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

China's ability to project force onto Taiwan is huge...and can mess with the Koreas, Vietnam and Japan without much trouble.

And while their ability to project military force beyond the region is limited...they are upgrading their military very rapidly.

And if there ever was an issue that would push China towards a hot war it's Taiwan

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Snuffleupagus

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

lol, in addition to what was already said, China also owns the US economy and could devalue it to zero in a second, completely destroying their buying power.

Not to mention that China has a far more advanced digital warfare front than the US could dream of at this point. The US could physically destroy China if it chose to, but that's a war with a high cost of winning.

Amazing how many people write off China.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by New Era

And who do you think develops the potential in those students? Do you think that the bricks and mortar of the building these students sit in magically draw out the brilliance of those students, or do you think it is the faculty who share their experience and expertise on each subject and challenges the student to work beyond the constraints of their understanding or perspective?



Whoa! Holy moving of the goalposts, Batman. We just went from a discussion of the faults of education in general to a discussion about the faults of institutions who have a research component attached to their faculty responsibilities. That is a big difference between the two, but the fact still remains, the better faculty will draw the better positions at better schools, and as a result draw the better students.

Boy, you either misunderstood my post, or are misrepresenting it. I clearly stated how an institution's reputation is established, and it is all on the quality of the graduates (the quality of the student) and how they display or execute their theoretical foundations learned in school (the quality of the learning from faculty). The product is how universities are judged, and the graduates are the product. If an institution wants better quality graduates (a better product) they need to attract better faculty to work with the students and push them to realize their potential. This is why an institution like ASU made wholesale changes in their faculty and started bringing in professors like Lawrence Krauss. Your school is only as good as the faculty who teach there.

I'm arguing their is a marginal link between the quality of faculty and the quality of education. I'm in general talking about 4 year degree programs accredited by industry and to some degree trade schools as well as opposed to the scam trump universities and other devry type degree farms.

The faculty at these institutions is not selected based on there ability too educate. Therefore you can't successfully make an argument that the success of these students is because of the quality of faculty. In many cases it is inspite of the quality of faculty. Based on my experience 50% of faculty at 4yr degree granting institutions would rather not teach.

What drives the quality of outcome is the quality of student and there ability to learn from semi-competent teachers.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by GGG

I'm arguing their is a marginal link between the quality of faculty and the quality of education. I'm in general talking about 4 year degree programs accredited by industry and to some degree trade schools as well as opposed to the scam trump universities and other devry type degree farms.

The faculty at these institutions is not selected based on there ability too educate. Therefore you can't successfully make an argument that the success of these students is because of the quality of faculty. In many cases it is inspite of the quality of faculty. Based on my experience 50% of faculty at 4yr degree granting institutions would rather not teach.

What drives the quality of outcome is the quality of student and there ability to learn from semi-competent teachers.

Okay, you're just doing this on purpose now.

Anyway, this might be my favourite Onion piece this year.

http://www.theonion.com/article/face...ully-che-54790

“You can’t just accept everything you see online, which is why I always take a closer look at the claims that are made in every article and make sure that each one of them is backed up by my existing assumptions and personal feelings about the world,” said Wheatley, who told reporters he had to correct several friends on Facebook earlier this week after an investigation of his beliefs and individual political perspectives proved the articles they had posted to be entirely false.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Okay, you're just doing this on purpose now.

You missed the two,to,toos

[ernie]

Originally Posted by SeeBass

I would like this info to be tracked as well.

What was the average wage of the jobs lost that month- versus- average wage of new jobs started that month.

they track average wage growth overall. It may not be tracked to an individual level but since mid-2010 wage growth has been positive.

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/unit...es/wage-growth

[ernie]

Originally Posted by Snuffleupagus

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

Smoke and mirrors economy that has the US in a near $400 billion trade deficit with and is the largest trade partner.

[GirlySports]

if you study Chinese history you know that China can fall apart at any moment.

smoke and mirrors with inflated growth numbers, China boasts the largest middle class in the world. Their definition of the middle class is making more than $10 a day.

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

lol, in addition to what was already said, China also owns the US economy and could devalue it to zero in a second, completely destroying their buying power.

China's US Treasuries holdings have been in decline for awhile now and is barely larger than Japan's.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...-four-year-low

A sudden selloff would probably hurt China much more, given that US Treasuries remains the world's safe harbor investment. Any sudden drop would correct itself pretty shortly, especially in a world awash with easy credit and buy happy central banks.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by accord1999

China's US Treasuries holdings have been in decline for awhile now and is barely larger than Japan's.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...-four-year-low

A sudden selloff would probably hurt China much more, given that US Treasuries remains the world's safe harbor investment. Any sudden drop would correct itself pretty shortly, especially in a world awash with easy credit and buy happy central banks.

If by pretty shortly, you mean after global market plunge, interest rates rise, and the US suffers what would absolutely be the worst recession they've ever seen over the course of a decade or more... then yes... shortly.

I'm not arguing that the US wouldn't survive. I'm arguing that the people who brush China off as a non-threat are not viewing the situation accurately. The US could crush China, but it'd stick a poison dagger in their back on the way down.

[Fozzie_DeBear]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

if you study Chinese history you know that China can fall apart at any moment.

smoke and mirrors with inflated growth numbers, China boasts the largest middle class in the world. Their definition of the middle class is making more than $10 a day.

I guess it depends how far back in Chinese history you go...until the 1800's China was pretty much a top tier global power (Mongul shenanigans aside). Sure dynasties fall apart but overall, has any other civilization been as successful over the last 1000+ years?

[GirlySports]

Sure while the Europeans were exploring the world the Chinese couldnt even sail to Guam.

They tried to invade korea a bunch of times...failed. Tried to invade vietnam a bunch of times..failed. Tried to invade Tibet a bunch of times.. failed.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

Sure while the Europeans were exploring the world the Chinese couldnt even sail to Guam.

They tried to invade korea a bunch of times...failed. Tried to invade vietnam a bunch of times..failed. Tried to invade Tibet a bunch of times.. failed.

What are you talking about? What's your definition of "failed"?

They've successfully invaded every one of those places. They ruled Vietnam for years.

I would count their limited interest in exploration as a negative.

[Snuffleupagus]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

lol, in addition to what was already said, China also owns the US economy and could devalue it to zero in a second, completely destroying their buying power.

Yeah no!

The Chinese economy is totally based around exports with the biggest chunk of which go to the US, An economic war would hurt the Americans short term but if China lost the US as a buyer for their goods their economy would go into a tailspin.

Also, remember which currency the world works on.

[GirlySports]

Ruled as a vassel state maybe. Everytime they invaded Vietnam they got tropical diseases. The mongols could not rven take Vietnam.