Ustwo

One thing I've been trying to educate myself in is economics and wealth generation. I've come to realize just how little I knew about it, understood it, and that I was taught nothing about it in school. Even most MBA's seem to know nothing about it and they are basically bean counters. Those that do understand it become the reviled 'rich'.

So my question to you is this. If you are working pay check to pay check, if you are in credit card debt, if you can't pay all your bills, if you think your problem is you need a raise, what makes you qualified to think you understand the economy well enough to know what is 'good policy' is?

Who would you rather get investment advice from?

A university economist who has nothing beyond his schools pension/401k and pay check, or a guy who makes millions off his assets alone?

I can feel the responses right now. The rich just makes rules to make them richer, they can't be trusted, etc. Its true the rich like rules/laws that makes them richer, but it seems more laws are made to just punish the rich, voted by the masses of folks who can't figure out why its bad to put 9k on a credit card at 18.5% interest. They never DO punish the rich of course, the rich 'get it', they figure out how to maximize their investments and find the loop holes. They just punish themselves by making it harder to break out of the middle class. Income tax started only on the 'rich', which is how they overcame the anti-tax stance most Americans had back then, they made it someone elses problem. Well you see how well that worked out for the middle class.

The lack of financial education in this country is a travesty. I was in school longer than many of you reading this have been alive and in all that time I NEVER got any real classes on money and the economy. Never a plan for how to gain wealth, never a list things you shouldn't do. I had a few talks, but that was it. Plus of those few classes, who is teaching them? Self made millionaires or men who need to brown bag lunch? I was taught you need an education to get a good job, but most jobs, even high paid jobs, do not make you rich, they just let you pay more bills. You are still tied to that job, or you loose your car, your credit, and your biggest "asset" (HA!) your house. The school system does not train good employers but good employees. When the next depression hits, it is going to be due to peoples lack of education about money that causes it.

Rather than think 'I wish I had that kind of money' or get jealous, I've been studying how the game works and what makes one wealthy. They know how to play the game, and you don't learn how to play well by watching the losers.

I've come to trust the rich.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

dksuddeth

imo, a wealthy individual (as an individual) can be trusted. a wealthy corporation should never be trusted.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

cyrnel

Trusted for knowing how to manage an individual's finances, certainly. For managing larger entities, possibly. Trusted for acting in the interest of the masses, rarely.

__________________
There are a vast number of people who are uninformed and heavily propagandized, but fundamentally decent. The propaganda that inundates them is effective when unchallenged, but much of it goes only skin deep. If they can be brought to raise questions and apply their decent instincts and basic intelligence, many people quickly escape the confines of the doctrinal system and are willing to do something to help others who are really suffering and oppressed." -Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media, p. 195

Cimarron29414

It is curious that you say this. I am not picking a fight, I am genuinely curious. As a matter of fact, this question might need to be moved to Philosophy: Why do you feel any individual has a financial obligation to the masses?

__________________
Gives a man a halo, does mead.

"Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

Ustwo

So you trust these same masses who are up to their necks in debt to know what is best?

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

filtherton

I agree that financial education is nonexistent in america and that this is perhaps one very large reason why there are so many people who make so many horrible financial decisions.

I disagree that the rich are somehow necessarily more understanding of the economy. Certainly some of them are, but: A lot of wealthy people hire accountants to help them exploit loopholes in tax code. A lot of rich people hire experts to invest their money for them. A lot of rich people, like our president(in a matter of fact nonpartisan jab of a reference) never had to work a day in their life to achieve material wealth. For every warren buffet there is a george bush or a paris hilton. There are a lot of wealthy people who use their money to buy the expertise of people who can help them keep and/or make money. The poor don't often have the same access to these same experts.

I don't trust the rich any more than i trust the poor. Someone with money is just as apt to fuck you over as someone without money. The rich person often has access to more effective means of doing so.

The people i don't trust as a rule are the greedy. The ken lays, the latrell sprewels, the people who prefer the accumulation of wealth to integrity or ethical behavior. I don't trust people who think that the economy's sole purpose is facilitate the accumulation of wealth.

Cimarron29414

Why do we, as a society, have a tendency to lump words together? (Rich and greedy)

__________________
Gives a man a halo, does mead.

"Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

Charlatan

They don't but the thrust of this thread suggests that we should trust wealthy individuals to plan our finances... I think most would agree that this is a valid assessment on a level of personal finance but less credulous on a national level (i.e. for the masses).

I tend to agree with filtherton's take on this.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

cyrnel

A festering sore is sometimes better than a driven knife. Sometimes the knife heals the sore.

When interest conflict there may not be a right answer. Certainly someone is always unhappy. However, I do believe there's always a more encompassing, long-term answer than "make me wealthy." The two may be compatible, or not. Who I trust depends on the question.

There's a danger here in confusing interests among me, community, country, world. I agree the odds are better for a wealthy person to have a grasp of economics, but if you mean that person automatically deserves our trust in making decisions, that's a matter of qualifications vs. qualities.

__________________
There are a vast number of people who are uninformed and heavily propagandized, but fundamentally decent. The propaganda that inundates them is effective when unchallenged, but much of it goes only skin deep. If they can be brought to raise questions and apply their decent instincts and basic intelligence, many people quickly escape the confines of the doctrinal system and are willing to do something to help others who are really suffering and oppressed." -Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media, p. 195

filtherton

I didn't equate the two, though i believe there might be a positive correlation. The greedy are more incined to pursue wealth and perhaps because of this fact, more likely to achieve it. It is a pretty simplistic theory, i'll give you that.

If it weren't for the masses, no individual would be able to acquire any wealth at all. And also, if the masses don't feel like the current system is benefitting them, then they are perfectly entitled to change it. "Sharing the wealth" is a good policy in terms of self preservation.

Another interesting question: Why should the masses be obligated to allow anyone to accumulate wealth?

That isn't what he said. Don't derail your own thread.

OTK

UsTwo, Did you just finish reading "Rich Dad, Poor Dad"? If you haven't read it you should pick up a copy.

StanT

Neither, I have all the respect in the world for a self made millionare like Bill Gates and none whatsoever for an heiress like Paris Hilton.

While I disagree with Mr Gates on a lot of issues, watching how he manages money and philanthropy is very interesting.

Paris Hilton is only interesting when she takes her clothes off (and then only marginally).

If you haven't earned the money yourself, you are not due any respect.

ratbastid

I like where you're looking, Ustwo. I think you're dead on that our education system is designed to feed labor into the workforce, not to empower individuals to become financially independant (or even financially solvent).

I'd be interested to know the percentage of that top 1% that got there under their own steam versus inheritance. I suspect that it's a low percentage. A rich person who is rich because their great great grandfather build the railroads doesn't seem to me like somebody who should be educating others in finance. They don't necessarily know anything beyond how to sign the check to pay their accountant's bill. Maybe not even that.

I think it's flawed reasoning to think that the rich will have the best interests of the masses in mind. I also think it's flawed reasoning to think that the MASSES will have the best interests of the masses in mind. People pretty much look out for themselves. It's just that the wealthy have vastly more resources with which to do that.

Jinn

Frankly I've decided that the "masses" are uneducated simps who'll always be wallowing in the depths of debt. It used to bother me... I wondered.. "why can't we just educate them and help them out of debt?" It still bothers me, but not much. Ensuring my own financial independence is my primary concern, not theirs. If we educated everyone on making money, who would work minimum wage to make my food, etc? We NEED stupid people to make the menial grind work. Enlightened people with investments and realistic plans for the future refuse to be degraded in a minimum wage job. Even as a fiscal liberal, I realize that the majority of people ARE stupider than me, and I know that this alone ensures a relative level of comfort.

And a question to you, Ustwo: if you could ensure a relative financial stability by just going to work everyday and putting in that 8 hours, why should you want to make more? Some people are content being middle class, or even poor.

__________________
"I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel

cyrnel

I didn't intend that meaning. Only that trust varies by question and interests.

But since you're asking, I do believe individuals have an obligation to contribute to the health of their community, even if only for self-interest. To guard the back door. Since one's community (or area of effect in this case) scales with wealth, a larger entity has a broader obligation that will have larger internal conflicts of interest.

I do expect the average wealthy person to have a better grasp of causes and effects but that says nothing of their ability or motives to manage beyond their interests. Back to the question. What trust are we talking about?

-Not a communist. Honest.

__________________
There are a vast number of people who are uninformed and heavily propagandized, but fundamentally decent. The propaganda that inundates them is effective when unchallenged, but much of it goes only skin deep. If they can be brought to raise questions and apply their decent instincts and basic intelligence, many people quickly escape the confines of the doctrinal system and are willing to do something to help others who are really suffering and oppressed." -Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media, p. 195

kutulu

Since most of the people perform some sort of labor and school is supposed to prepare you for working one day isn't that the goal of school?

It would be important to teach kids sound financial advice but most likely it will go in one ear and out the other. At that age most aren't ready to think long term like that.

To me, financially independent doesn't mean you don't need to work, just that you have a nice chunk of money set aside. However, it is about a obtaining a certain amount of wealth. Wealth works on a pyramid scale and it would seem wastefull to devote large resources towards achieving a goal that less than 5% will get to.

Cynthetiq

I trust them like I trust anyone. A bad apple can ruin the whold group but that doesn't mean they are all bad.

I talk to the "rich" all the time to glean what deals are coming etc. I also ask them opinions on some plans that I have etc.

Do I ask my peers that are only buying depreciable assets on credit? Nope.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

kutulu

If this was fark I'd think you are trolling. Overall, I agree with you I just wish you didn't put it in such a condescending way to the people on the bottom. True, unless we have some communist system where wealth is divided equally we will always have rich, poor, and the people in the middle. I don't have a problem with the idea of having three classes. All I ask is that we ensure that upward mobility is possible and that the 'unwashed masses' are at least paid/given enough so that they can be heathy, educated, and have a descent place to live (as long as they are working or making a proveable effort to secure work).

The Bush/Kennedy/Hilton thing is the exact reason why I have no problem with high inheritance taxes. They didn't do shit to earn that money. Even with the taxes they get a buttload of money (enough to never work a day in their life if that is their choice).

Rekna

In reality people get rich in one of 2 ways. A) It is given to them (inheritence or lottery) B) by taking advantage of others. I would not like either of these people making financial laws.

When I was younger I had a choice to make, i could have started my own buisness doing computer repairs/sales and easily made tuns of money by exploiting people who know nothing about computers and charging them a hundred dollars an hour to "fix" their computers and sell them computers with cheap parts for high profit or I could go to school and get a job making an honest living. I chose an honest living because I do not like taking advantage of people, I don't think I should charge someone $100 an hour to do something that deserves $20 an hour. Now i'm working on my PHD and will still make decent money but sometimes I sit back and wonder how much I could have made by taking advantage of people.

stevo

How are you doing Rekna?
I don't believe you would have been taking advantage of those people. You had a skill that not a lot of people had; a skill that was in demand. You may have only paid someone $20 an hour to solve the same problem, but thats because you knew what was wrong and how to fix it. If someone is willing to pay you $100/hr to perform a service for them, thats because they value that service at that price, otherwise they would not pay it. If they want they could take the time and money it takes to learn such skills, but it is worth more to them to pay someone to do it for them than to make the heavy investment up-front. I would ammend your statement and add C) by working hard smartly.

back on topic, I think Ustwo has a point, that many here seem to agree with: Personal financial responsibility is not being taught in school to everyone, but he also makes the point that if you want to know the information is out there and it is up to you to find it.

I guess you cant just teach responsibility, you have to be responsible enough to find it and willing to learn it...

__________________
"If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser

flstf

I agree. Unfortunately many of those who do understand how to play the game seem to also know how to take advantage of the system and who to payoff in order to increase their wealth. I don't doubt that there are many ecomomically smart wealthy people. I also don't doubt that many of them use this knowledge to vastly increase their wealth through corruption.

One can only hope that at least a few of these guys would be satisfied with their millions and want to run for national office and try to do the right thing instead of continuing to play the game they know so well. I think many are so caught up in creating more wealth for themselves that they cannot help themslves from using their knowledge and connections to rig the system. How do you know which ones we can trust when so many seem to be playing the game to increase their wealth at anyone/everyone elses expense?

I imagine Diogenes in search for an honest man would be hard pressed to find more than a few among our wealthy and politically elite.

Rekna

stevo i guess i don't believe that a company charing $100 an hour to install a virus scanner or run a spyware removal tool is fair. I think there are lots of professions out there that exploit peoples despiration to make lots of money. The best example of this is doctors and lawyers. When someones lively hood is on the line you can just charge huge amounts of money and it doesn't matter. Doctors and lawyers exploit people. I don't think the honest hard workers ever become rich. I bet if we looked at millionares (who didn't win their money or inherit it) have made their money by taking advantage of people.

pig

Ustwo,

this is similar to many other posters I think, but in response to the question:

First, are you talking about personal finanical planning, or larger political financial policy? If the first, then in theoretical space, the rich guy who made his own wealth. You have to assume he's being honest with you and that for some reason, he's going to tell you how to accumulate wealth instead of accumulating it himself...but obviously if you want to do x, then you emulate the people who have done x successfully. In the real world, unless I know the guy/girl/it really well, or he's making money for me and him simultaneously (he makes $$$ off my $$$), then I'm not too confident that I'll get the 100% straight dope from him, etc.

In political policy, I see no reason to trust random rich people over random poor people. You have to ask yourself on the behalf of whom is giving his recommendation? If its in his interest, there's no guarrantee that its in mine; in fact, it very likely will be directly counter to my interest - why would I take such advice?

If a rich guys tells me :

"I advise you to give me all your money. Now" I'm obviously not going to take that advice. If the national policy is just a convoluted version of that, why would I be excited about the idea?

Am I missing the intent of your post? I think there's no substitute for thinking for yourself, regardless of whether you adopt a rich or a poor person for your regent.

__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style

pig

Ummm...that might be a kind of broad sweeping statement...hookers exploit people too. where's the righteous indignation?

__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style

Ustwo

Just a note, being I started this thread I do plan on responding to the thoughtful posts. Being currently at work, apparently exploiting people , I don't have time right now.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

alansmithee

I remember reading in Fortune magazine a year or so ago about how "rich" people got their wealth. The number one listed reason was real estate (around 35%). Number two was inheritence (around 28%).

I don't think that the rich necessarily are any better at managing money than the poor, they are just better able to absorb bad events, and can more easily protect what wealth they have. Running a effective business != money managing expert. That's what accountants and financial advisors are for. If I invent something that sells, it doesn't mean I instantly understand economic principles any better because I'm rich than I did when I was poor. By your reasoning Ustwo, Mike Tyson would've been a good financial advisor, despite the fact he was hemmoraging money. The richer you are, the more likely you can be insulated and protected against your own foolishness.

And I do agree that there isn't much focus in schools on personal finance. Part of the problem is that there has been a big shift in the last 100 years from people thinking savings and thrift are the way to go, to people now being focused on consumption. So you have people spending more than they can really afford, and you get a situation where most people are one paycheck away from being in serious trouble.


Unfortunately, our economy works best when it's used just to accumulate wealth. Greed is a positive in capitalism, it's the driving force.

Charlatan

While it is largely the case, I don't think it is a truism. As I understand Adam Smith, he believed in the responibiliy of the Captialist to his employees and the community at large.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

cyrnel

There's certainly an element of ditch digging involved. If everybody got it, it would be harder to manage.

And where does the education end? Society is continually exposed to advisors encouraging debt and depletion, not wealth building. It starts before K and goes long after higher ed.

To me the question of "who" is as much "which face of who?" Is it face-to-face over coffee, in a book, at a seminar, or maybe a product advertisement? Those who have attained substantial wealth generally hold positions that allow multiple forms of interaction, though the message varies by audience. It's rare I have coffee with these people.

I'm trying to think of anyone I trust that tfp'ers would know. Empty well. I trust greenspan to be a financial geek (in a good way). He's very concerned with big-picture finances, pressured many times by politics. I expect politicians to be very concerned with personal (and allies') financial health, pressured many times by big-picture finances. If I'm reading or watching something, consuming any form of media, I assume the material is massaged by motives and put on my tinfoil hat.

__________________
There are a vast number of people who are uninformed and heavily propagandized, but fundamentally decent. The propaganda that inundates them is effective when unchallenged, but much of it goes only skin deep. If they can be brought to raise questions and apply their decent instincts and basic intelligence, many people quickly escape the confines of the doctrinal system and are willing to do something to help others who are really suffering and oppressed." -Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media, p. 195

Locobot

In Ustwo's state you're required to pass a course in consumer economics in order to graduate high school. The course covers topics such as insurance, lease agreements, contracts, labor rights, how to budget, and bankruptcy. Therefore I'd have to say one of the major premises for this thread, that we aren't teaching people financial responsibility, is pretty much bullshit.

pig

It might also be interesting to note that as far as I can tell, there is no truly capitalist society on Earth. Don't want to threadjack, won't go into it, but I will say that if we're not in a purely capitalistic society, then whatever the theoretical driving force is for socialist economies might also have some people who have "perfected" the application of that knowledge, and they might be interesting people to take advice from as well, in my opinion.

Maybe that's begging the question a little, so I'll add that I think there is a need for social service in a healthy society, and for general social welfare, and that people who devote large portions of their lives to the service of others should also be consulted when turning to questions of national / international economic policy, in as far as how it will affect the people they serve and work with.

If you're looking for personal wealth accumulation, start hooking up with Warren Buffett's or Bill Gates' family members and find out which cigars he likes and what he drinks. Sit with him. Chill with him. Learn. etc. Find out who manages his money. Repeat process, etc.

__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style

stevo

I never had one class/course on finance or economics until my sophmore year of college. I don't think I've ever had a course in "consumer economics" like you're describing and I have an MS in econ.

Steve Forbes ran for president. Apparently he didn't have the connections it takes to rig the system. Most of what I remember from his campaign is the jokes people said about how he was just some rich guy, but knew nothing about running a country. I think I remember a joke on letterman, something along the lines of "his plan to win the election is to buy everyone who votes for him a car." He really got no respect. Unless you're a career politician, its pretty hard to win.

__________________
"If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser

SecretMethod70

I graduated high school in Illinois only 5 years ago. Unless things have changed since then (in which case, it doesn't really effect Ustwo's premise anyway), it was not a COURSE in consumer economics, it was a week or so of information thrown into the middle of some other class. And I went to school in one of the best areas in the state and country (at the time at least, I don't know what it's like now but I hear it's not as good from current teachers there).

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

filtherton

I agree with everything you said except this. I think our economy works best at accumulating wealth when its used just to accumulate wealth. The idea that it doesn't make sense economically to ensure that everyone has access to food, shelter, and healthcare is to me one of the great flaws with fiscal conservative thought. I would prefer that economic success was measured in terms of quality of life of the least fortunate in society, rather than the accumulation of wealth.

dksuddeth

rekna, if i'm the only computer tech in my podunk little home town and people need me, then my time and services are a valuable commodity. whatever i charge is irrelevant, if people pay me what i charge, then they obviously feel that i'm worth it. if the did not, then they would choose to learn themselves or pack it up and drive down the road to the next town for a computer guy.

the same with lawyers and doctors, provided health insurance companies didn't have their say in it, would charge what they thought their time and services would be worth. If a patient thinks it is too much, they are free to find another doctor or lawyer.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

filtherton

I imagine rekna's dillemma is that he doesn't feel like it is always ethical to charge exorbitant fees just because you can get away with it.

Locobot

Well as I said above this is the mandate in one state, but it happens to be Ustwo's state:

http://www.isbe.state.il.us/ils/soci...mandates_2.htm
So you might have just taken the proficiency test Secret Method, but you did go through this/demonstrate your knowledge.

I suppose this wouldn't satisfy Ustwo though since high school teachers don't tend to be "rich." I'm sure though that he'd be the first person to demand a tax raise so his community's adolescents can get a proper education from a wealthy person.

Ustwo

Most of the wealthy are wealthy, in part, because they are incorporated.

Perhaps I needed to be more clear, I am of course talking about people who know how to make money, not those who get it handed to them. As for wealthy people hiring people who are smarter then them to manage their wealth, that only makes sense. I’ll be willing to bet you even Buffet has accountants and the lot. No one knows everything.

I don’t trust the rich in many matters any more than a poor man, but I do trust them (those again who know how to make money) with matters concerning money far more than a poor man. That doesn’t mean I’ll hand them my wallet kind of trust, but I trust they have a better idea for what makes the economy strong.

Why is that? Something that works for the individual won’t work for the economy as a whole? We should trust those who can not handle their own finances with ‘the masses’? Its that kind of thinking which is about to give us the social security melt down. I’m sure as hell glad I’m not 60.


You lost me here. You are saying that since most people don’t understand finances there is not a need to spend money to teach it?



Exactly my point. You don’t ask a crappy golfer how to play, you shouldn’t ask someone who is crappy with money what they think fiscal policy should be.

You have a very odd view of an honest living. So do you expect someone else (since you didn’t deem it worthy) to do that work for $20 an hour? You had a skill others needed, supply was limited and demand was high, hence the rate. Yet you deemed your own time worth only $20 an hour. Time is the one thing we all run out of, I want to spend as little of that limited time working for money.

Influence will never go away in any society, so yes you can rig the system, be it with political power directly, or bribes. Despite this most of the wealthy are honest because there is no need to be dishonest about it. If I buy a house at $40k and sell it a week later for $60k was I dishonest? You won’t find to many self made rich men running because we have been taught to revile the rich in this country rather than respect them. We allow our own jealousies to take over and assume they must have cheated to get where they are.

While I think a rich man is more likely to give you good advice about finances on a 1-1 level due to the fact that a poor man can’t no matter how honest he is, that wasn’t my intent. My intent was more why on the grand scale of things, do we think that people who can’t make any money themselves know what is best for the economy at large.

In my state you are required to pass an exam on the US government. I work with children and when I asked one of them how she didn’t know who the president was (bright kid too) if she just has this test she said they gave them the answers ahead of time. Plus who is teaching this class if it is being given fairly? A union member making 50k a year using the union retirement plan? I’d also add that almost nothing in there covers how to become wealthy or understanding money. Its more of a ‘how to manage your debt’ course. The replies that followed should let you know the truth of this ‘education’ if you are willing to listen to them. Even though I was in school when that was in place I never took such a course, and based on the level of consumer debt do you REALLY think that is enough?

Yes and this type of thought is why we are all in deep doo doo economicly in a few years. TANSTAAFL.


Well I'm not sure how rich Tyson is these days but he was never wealthy. He was blowing his income as fast as he made it, he just had a bigger income. But I of course meant people who knew how to manufacture wealth, not just got a big check for beating the snot out of someone as an employee of an entertainment industry.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

filtherton

It's also what stopped the country from imploding following the great depression. China owning a whole shitload of our debt is why we are all in deep doo doo economically in a few years.

SecretMethod70

This thread has been going well so far, let's not get personal with it.

Anyway, the fact it is mandated doesn't mean it's executed well. Spending a week on the subject and taking a test at the end that says you can remember things from a week ago hardly demonstrates any knowledge of consumer economics. I think Ustwo's point - and the point of many people in this thread, at least regarding consumer education, is that even when it is attempted it is done poorly. At the very least it *should* be it's own class, lasting an entire semester. Frankly, I'd rather it be a class that is taken more than once - more likely to stick in that case. It is, after all, one of the most important things a student could take from high school. It's a good idea to make sure it sticks.

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

Ustwo

You think government spending saved us in the great depression?

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.