Results 1 to 40 of 80

Thread: Is college debt justified

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Rick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Former USSR (global nomad)
    TIM
    IEE
    Posts
    2,050
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Is college debt justified

    I was going to start here with an exposition on the subject of Peak Oil and its implications, but I fear the subject has been belabored on the web. I think everyone knows what's going on by this point. Only the government keeps quiet on the subject. (For those who yet remain in the dark, cheap oil -- and other resources -- are running out, driving up the cost of everything and leading to what will be a permanent decline in economic production; the end of economic growth means eventual monetary crisis in every country with substantial national debt; monetary crisis means economic depression)

    My question is, how can people justify taking on any additional loans, including student loans, at this point in time? I recently learned that you can't just "default" on student loans and may be in debt slavery for decades to come, as well as family members who may have undersigned the loans.

    Does anybody honestly think the economy is going to "get better" and everyone will be able to get jobs again?

    How many recent graduates cannot find any job or are working at Starbucks for $8/hr. with no prospects for a higher paying job?

    How can one justify going into debt to pay for schooling that will not provide a return on investment?

    Do people realize what the risks of taking on college debt are?

    How can someone justify paying $20,000 a year to learn stuff you can learn for free from books, with the result of being miserable for years to come?
    It is easier for the eye of a camel to pass through a rich man than for a needle to enter the kingdom of heaven.

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,858
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I'll have an answer for you in two years. I'll know then.

    In the meantime, sign me up for another 8k loan!

    How can someone justify paying $20,000 a year to learn stuff you can learn for free from books, with the result of being miserable for years to come?
    That's a very good question. The short answer is they have no choice. Capital is tightly controlled and the only way to get it is to do the work that the people who have it demand. As for learning things for free from books, the short answer is that that doesn't work because of this thing called EXTROVERSION. A lot of people want to have everything explained to them because they don't like using their noggins. Now you can argue that not every extrovert demands a verbal (or even one-on-one) response to their questions, but the simple fact is that there is not an INTROVERT out there who won't use their noggin to understand something. (but then there's the whole "I've my own ideas" issue with the introverts... every introvert wants to reach THEIR OWN conclusion).

    Actually not many people take out college loans. The current Pell Grant limit is $5400 per student per year. ($2700 per semester) That's enough to pay the community college tuition + books if bought used. For that, you get education enough to hold a job with pay ranging from 20-30k a year. Those who go for the bachelors degree are going to be making anywhere from 50-100% more money than the people with associates degrees, and they are probably going to marry someone who makes a roughly similar amount. $70-$90k a year is good money, much more than my family ever had! (when I was growing up, anyway)

    I don't think peak oil will come for ages. I think its just a speculation scare to drive up prices. (and would you know it, it worked!) We'll be able to send solar powered robots to get our resources from other worlds long (on the other hand... where exactly are we going to find petroleum on lifeless planets...?)

    We live ridiculously wasteful today. There should a solar panels on the roofs of every home and building. However market forces have made it so that there is no non-altruistic reason to do so. Why bother investing in solar power when the electric company is just going to jack up prices on your electric to make up for their "lost" revenue?
    Last edited by tcaudilllg; 07-16-2010 at 05:41 PM.

  3. #3
    Rick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Former USSR (global nomad)
    TIM
    IEE
    Posts
    2,050
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Before I studied Peak Oil and alternate energy sources, and the subject of energy in general, I was under the impression that oil would start to run out at some distant date -- say, 2030. Much to my surprise, I learned that most oil-producing nations were already past peak production, that the U.S. peaked in 1970, and that production in the Persian Gulf countries has been flattening out. The Peak Oil community now generally believes peak world oil production/consumption to have occurred in July 2008. I've looked at all the charts and read the reports and find this highly probable.

    When you first learn of Peak Oil, you first imagine that the use of oil will decline just as gradually as oil output increased over the decades. This is not true. There is a key concept central to any energy discussion called "EROEI" (energy return on energy invested). If half of oil production is used to mine the oil itself, then we effectively have only half of the oil available for other uses. Since the dawn of the oil age the EROEI of oil and other fossil fuels has been steadily dropping. At first you could basically just poke the ground, and oil spouted out. Early wells had an EROEI of 100:1. Today's oilfields are less accessible and take more technology to develop. EROEI is around 20:1, and this ratio will drop as we switch to progressively more difficult-to-reach sources.

    At what point is oil extraction too costly to be worth it? Some analysts suggest 10:1 as a minimum EROEI for the maintenance of industrial civilization as we know it.

    The fact is, there will not be a gradual decline in oil usage, but a rather abrupt drop-off as both oil production and EROEI go down. Furthermore, an economy crippled by a lack of energy leads to monetary crisis, which further decreases economic output, and so on.

    Ultraconservatives will tell you that the U.S. has "vast oil shale reserves," as if oil supply were nothing to worry about. The fact is, oil shale is a terrible source with an EROEI of between 1.5:1 and 4:1, and requires vast amounts of water to extract. And wouldn't you know, the U.S. oil shale deposits are right in the mild of an arid zone with very little water (Utah, Wyoming, Colorado). No one in his right mind would develop those deposits. It is just used as a conservative talking point to downplay Peak Oil and related concerns.

    The Athabaska tar sands are also a terrible oil source with a low EROEI of between 5:1 and 6:1. Yet now that's where the U.S. is getting a large portion of its oil. The conservative mantra is that the free market will take care of our energy issues, and that new technologies will be developed as oil prices rise. That's true to some extent, but just how fast can the free market act? Can a man be put on the moon 6 months after the market demands it? Try completely rebuilding national energy and transportation infrastructure in a matter of months or years, and by letting the free market run its course with no political guidance.

    It turns out that, of all available energy sources, fossil fuels have by far the highest EROEI and the largest total supplies. Coal is still at about 50:1, oil near 20:1, and natural gas 10:1. Hydropower is very efficient but comes with environmental costs, and most potential has been developed already. Nuclear is roughly between 5:1 and 8:1. Wind is among the best, at near 18:1. Solar is surprisingly low at 3.75:1 to 10:1. Ethanol and biofuels are usually pathetic, sometimes below 1:1.

    The truth is, many lauded alternative energy source really aren't good for more than small-scale local needs. To maintain current energy usage in an era of diminishing oil supplies would require huge immediate investment in a wide range of alternative energy infrastructure. As the EROEI of fossil fuels is still higher than the alternatives, it isn't happening on its own without government subsidies. Yet if you wait too long to develop things that take years to set up, then the energy might not be ready when the EROEI of oil and/or coal suddenly drops below a threshold level.

    As the EROEI of oil and coal drops, the more pollution is produced (BP spill is a case in point). At some point the ill effects outweigh any benefits gained.

    Finally, to run transportation, you need an extremely dense energy source such as oil. Airplanes cannot realistically run on electricity because no batteries have anything close to the amount of energy storage per unit weight needed to keep a plain in the air for long. When we switch to electric cars (if ever -- I am very skeptical anyone will have the money to buy them), we'll be reliant on elements such as lithium which are going to run out in the not-too-distant future, too. Basically, most current forms of transportation are unsustainable in the long run. The global economy as we know it is reliant upon cheap transportation fuel. Take that away, and 90% of international trade goes "poof."

    To understand more about energy and what options are actually available to us, read Richard Heinberg's report "Searching for a Miracle" (Searching for a Miracle|Richard Heinberg) All his numbers are from industry sources and experts. If you're getting your info from conservative talk show hosts, get ready to hear a ton of B.S.

    So what does this have to do with college debt?

    Basically, any debt is a gamble that in the future you will be able to produce more than you are currently producing. National debt is a gamble on increasing GDP. To increase, GDP requires additional resource inputs or more efficient use of existing inputs. Our economy runs on fossil fuels, which will soon begin to run out, no matter whether we have a Libertarian in office or a Socialist. Our national debt is rising quickly. Hundreds of billions of dollars were thrown at the banking system to keep it alive, and yet economic recovery has not resulted, unemployment is at 10%, and home foreclosures continue. Oil prices plummeted, and that didn't even help.

    What happens when you have a practice of government funding its programs and operations through debt, and the economy stops growing for a long period of time? Default, hyperinflation, or deflation. Each in turn causes a substantial drop in GDP. What goes for nations goes for individual debtors, too. While the Bush and Obama bailout plans shored up the banking system for now, it's still screwed unless GDP growth returns. GDP growth is associated with increased energy consumption. If there is too little energy available, energy prices rise rapidly in response to any sort of economic recovery, and recession resumes. If this happens 2, 3, or 4 times, people and businesses will get the picture and radically change their activities and habits. I wonder what the stock market will look like after that.

    Now look at education. For decades colleges and universities have been adding more and more bells and whistles, more and more infrastructure, and have been raising the cost of education in relative as well as absolute terms. You used to be able to go into just a little debt to attend college. Now it's tens of thousands of dollars. Who's benifiting? Of course, the colleges. There is a vast PR and conventional wisdom machine telling you to go to college and not fear taking on student debt, and for a long time it worked, but as soon as growth ends, people with debts are screwed, unless government steps in and declares a general debt amnesty. I wouldn't count on it.

    Think about where your tuition money is actually going. What percentage goes to pay your professors? Do people realize they're paying for air conditioning, building construction and maintenance, landscape architecture, administrative staff, cultural events, and a million other things? All the while you are told, "college debt is good debt. It is an investment in your future. It's worth a million dollars." (actually, more like $500,000, for past graduates).

    Basically, college students are going to wake up one day and realize they are up to their eyeballs in debt in a failing economy with no job prospects because all the things they studied to become are currently not in demand because they are all linked to the fossil-fuel based economy, which will be abandoned or at least vastly downgraded.

    If you ask what would I do, I would take a serious look at your situation and make every possible effort to avoid taking on debt. I would develop skills and contacts and assets that would put me in a better position to weather a long-term economic downturn with all of its new opportunities as well as mass disillusionment. I would not place my bets on an economic recovery. We had cheap fossil fuels (free energy) to pull us out of the Great Depression. Before that we essentially lived in a traditional, low-energy society. Now we have built up an incredibly energy-intensive society and will soon have no more cheap energy left.
    It is easier for the eye of a camel to pass through a rich man than for a needle to enter the kingdom of heaven.

  4. #4
    snegledmaca's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    1,900
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rick View Post
    Wind is among the best, at near 18:1.
    Isn't this alone enough?

    There are plenty of vast open (vacant) stretches of land, mountain ranges, shallow coastal waters all over the world that could potentially house wind farms. If it becomes the only option to be able to satisfy the energy appetite I see no reason for them to not be utilized. In fact I would say in a free market system that is precisely what would happen.

    Solar is surprisingly low at 3.75:1 to 10:1.
    Really? I was under the impression that it was higher.

    The truth is, many lauded alternative energy source really aren't good for more than small-scale local needs. To maintain current energy usage in an era of diminishing oil supplies would require huge immediate investment in a wide range of alternative energy infrastructure. As the EROEI of fossil fuels is still higher than the alternatives, it isn't happening on its own without government subsidies. Yet if you wait too long to develop things that take years to set up, then the energy might not be ready when the EROEI of oil and/or coal suddenly drops below a threshold level.
    Productive capacity can be retooled, factories can be made to produce other things. If there is productive capacity in a free market it will “sway in the economic wind”. Why would not the existing productive capacity be retooled instead of building everything from scratch?

    Finally, to run transportation, you need an extremely dense energy source such as oil. Airplanes cannot realistically run on electricity because no batteries have anything close to the amount of energy storage per unit weight needed to keep a plain in the air for long. When we switch to electric cars (if ever -- I am very skeptical anyone will have the money to buy them), we'll be reliant on elements such as lithium which are going to run out in the not-too-distant future, too. Basically, most current forms of transportation are unsustainable in the long run. The global economy as we know it is reliant upon cheap transportation fuel. Take that away, and 90% of international trade goes "poof."
    But we already have a manufacturable cheap transportation fuel: hydrogen.

    What about this scenario: huge wind farms on open plains, long, long power lines, close to industrial and urban areas huge hydrogen manufacturing plants using electricity to produce hydrogen, and from there the same fossil fuel infrastructure. With modified engines and fuel storage tanks to accommodate hydrogen.

  5. #5
    Rick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Former USSR (global nomad)
    TIM
    IEE
    Posts
    2,050
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by snegledmaca View Post
    Isn't this alone enough?
    Certainly, wind power is one of the best alternative energy sources. An 18:1 EROEI is pretty good. The main problems are intermittency, energy storage, and the fact that the strongest winds tend to be far from population centers, requiring extensive transmission infrastructure. This is why wind power has been gradually added on to existing energy systems rather than replacing them. The convenience of using fossil fuels for energy generation compared to the alternatives can hardly be overstated.

    Quote Originally Posted by snegledmaca View Post
    Productive capacity can be retooled, factories can be made to produce other things. If there is productive capacity in a free market it will “sway in the economic wind”. Why would not the existing productive capacity be retooled instead of building everything from scratch?
    The problem is indebtedness and a lack of cheap energy. All the activities you mention here are possible as long as there is energy available to retool and redesign infrastructure. If there is a monetary collapse before the retooling and rebuilding takes place, there will be no capital to do this work. If the credit system collapses, people will be forced to make due with whatever infrastructure and vehicles they have at the moment because it is impossible to gather the capital needed to make substantial upgrades.

    Quote Originally Posted by snegledmaca View Post
    But we already have a manufacturable cheap transportation fuel: hydrogen.
    Hydrogen is an energy carrier, not a fuel source per se. The energy itself has to come from electricity or fossil fuels.

    From [ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_vehicle]Hydrogen vehicle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame] :

    "The challenges facing the use of hydrogen in vehicles include production, storage, transport and distribution. The well-to-wheel efficiency for hydrogen, because of all these challenges will not exceed 25%."

    From Richard Heinberg:

    "For the past decade or so energy experts have debated whether the best energy carrier for a post- fossil fuel energy regime would be electricity or hydrogen.96 The argument for hydrogen runs as fol- lows: Our current transportation system (com- prised of cars, trucks, ships, and aircraft) uses liquid fuels almost exclusively. A transition to electrifica- tion would take time, retooling, and investment, and would face difficulties with electricity storage (discussed in more detail below): moreover, physi- cal limits to the energy density by weight of elec- tric batteries would mean that ships, large trucks, and aircraft could probably never be electrified in large numbers. The problem is so basic that it would remain even if batteries were substantially improved.

    Hydrogen could more effectively be stored in some situations, and thus might seem to be a better choice as a transport energy carrier. Moreover, hydrogen could be generated and stored at home for heating and electricity generation, as well as for fueling the family car.
    However, because hydrogen has a very low ener- gy density per unit of volume, storage is a problem in this case as well: hydrogen-powered airplanes would need enormous tanks representing a sub- stantial proportion of the size of the aircraft, and automobiles would need much larger tanks as well.

    Moreover, several technological hurdles must be overcome before fuel cells—which would be the ideal means to convert the energy of hydrogen into usable electricity—can be widely affordable. And since conversion of energy is never 100 percent efficient, converting energy from electricity (from solar or wind, for example) to hydrogen for storage before converting it back to electricity for final use will inevitably entail significant inefficiencies.
    The problems with hydrogen are so substantial that many analysts have by now concluded that its role in future energy systems will be limited (we are likely never to see a “hydrogen economy”), though for some applications it may indeed make sense."


    Basically, there are good reasons why there has not been a switch en masse to hydrogen: it is inferior to oil.


    Quote Originally Posted by snegledmaca View Post
    What about this scenario: huge wind farms on open plains, long, long power lines, close to industrial and urban areas huge hydrogen manufacturing plants using electricity to produce hydrogen, and from there the same fossil fuel infrastructure. With modified engines and fuel storage tanks to accommodate hydrogen.
    This is certainly one of the best-case scenarios. It requires a number of technological breakthroughs to materialize, especially with regards to hydrogen storage and use, as well as a huge initial input of fossil fuels to develop the infrastructure. However, it is still a step down in terms of energy efficiency and ease of use from fossil fuels and will thus probably end up costing consumers significantly more. I suspect that it will be more economical for people and businesses to lower energy expenditures and change business and transportation models rather than simply keep doing things the same way.

    I don't know enough to answer your scenario definitively, but, in any case it's the best-case scenario.
    It is easier for the eye of a camel to pass through a rich man than for a needle to enter the kingdom of heaven.

  6. #6
    Glorious Member mu4's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mind
    Posts
    8,161
    Mentioned
    722 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rick View Post
    Certainly, wind power is one of the best alternative energy sources. An 18:1 EROEI is pretty good. The main problems are intermittency, energy storage, and the fact that the strongest winds tend to be far from population centers, requiring extensive transmission infrastructure. This is why wind power has been gradually added on to existing energy systems rather than replacing them. The convenience of using fossil fuels for energy generation compared to the alternatives can hardly be overstated.
    I've heard the EROEI of oil shale and tar sands to not be as signifigant a issue because the source of the energy is found at the site not off site like solar and wind construction. Also oil is produced which has transportation value and does not require any additional processes to create. The water and pollution problems seems to be more the bottleneck in oil shale and tar sands.

    As far as 3-4:1 vs 10 to 1 or 18 to 1, one has to realize that at high EROEI, it makes things cheaper, but it does not make things unfeasible. I think anything near 5-10:1 and in abundant quantity is feasible.

    Coal is certainly better currently from a pricing standpoint, but even at 3-4:1 energy conversion rate, this is still highly feasible process, especially as the product is oil and has transport value.

    I also have heard crude oil is even lower then 20:1, more like 10:1 and lower but I'm not sure.

    Just because the future will result in much lower efficiency energy resources doesn't mean a signifigant amount of quality of life needs to be lost. As far as quality of life, this is often a factor of population as well, there has been a large population boom the last hundred years which is halting somewhat in developed countries and birth controlled countries. I think lowering Asian and African population growth certainly is a huge necessity for sustainability of the world.

    Basically, it's not that pessimistic.

  7. #7
    snegledmaca's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    1,900
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rick View Post
    Certainly, wind power is one of the best alternative energy sources. An 18:1 EROEI is pretty good. The main problems are intermittency, energy storage, and the fact that the strongest winds tend to be far from population centers, requiring extensive transmission infrastructure. This is why wind power has been gradually added on to existing energy systems rather than replacing them. The convenience of using fossil fuels for energy generation compared to the alternatives can hardly be overstated.
    I don't think convenience will be much of an issue. If it can work IMO it will do fine.

    When fossil fuels really start to fall short behind societies need there will be incredible incentive to provide power to society. As at that point society will be something like a dehydrated person begging for water. IMO power will shift to those who provide the energy. I could envision a power shifts to massive wind farm plantation owners. Intermittent sure, but enough plantations would offset that. Though energy storage would remain a problem.

    The problem is indebtedness
    What indebtedness? China, japan and germany are the worlds biggest creditors.

    and a lack of cheap energy. All the activities you mention here are possible as long as there is energy available to retool and redesign infrastructure.
    Well my issue here is that even through energy may not be cheap at that point it's not non existent, I see no reason why it would not be invested in energy producing activities. I would say future rich people would do precisely that, invest heavily in energy tools and infrastructure to maintain and control energy availability and distribution. Energy scarcity and the current system would make those the most profitable activities to undertake.

    If there is a monetary collapse before the retooling and rebuilding takes place, there will be no capital to do this work. If the credit system collapses, people will be forced to make due with whatever infrastructure and vehicles they have at the moment because it is impossible to gather the capital needed to make substantial upgrades.
    I think you might have something wrong here, not sure. Productivity and infrastructure (Capital) are separate entities from money and credit. A monetary and credit collapse could come before productivity and infrastructure have decayed beyond the “capital threshold” for retooling and rebuilding. Case in point with the USSR. And any other country whose political system brought about a monetary collapse. The people were left there, the fields, machinery, factories. It was all left standing (Capital).

    But anyway a true monetary and credit collapse has yet to occur. So far gold has every single time stepped in as money, to the best of my knowledge, enabling things like trade and credit to take place, on a small and large scale. The above scenario is possible only if capital gets destroyed, like in a war or environmental disaster.

    "The challenges facing the use of hydrogen in vehicles include production, storage, transport and distribution. The well-to-wheel efficiency for hydrogen, because of all these challenges will not exceed 25%."

    From Richard Heinberg:

    "For the past decade or so energy experts have debated whether the best energy carrier for a post- fossil fuel energy regime would be electricity or hydrogen.96 The argument for hydrogen runs as fol- lows: Our current transportation system (com- prised of cars, trucks, ships, and aircraft) uses liquid fuels almost exclusively. A transition to electrifica- tion would take time, retooling, and investment, and would face difficulties with electricity storage (discussed in more detail below): moreover, physi- cal limits to the energy density by weight of elec- tric batteries would mean that ships, large trucks, and aircraft could probably never be electrified in large numbers. The problem is so basic that it would remain even if batteries were substantially improved.

    Hydrogen could more effectively be stored in some situations, and thus might seem to be a better choice as a transport energy carrier. Moreover, hydrogen could be generated and stored at home for heating and electricity generation, as well as for fueling the family car.
    However, because hydrogen has a very low ener- gy density per unit of volume, storage is a problem in this case as well: hydrogen-powered airplanes would need enormous tanks representing a sub- stantial proportion of the size of the aircraft, and automobiles would need much larger tanks as well.

    Moreover, several technological hurdles must be overcome before fuel cells—which would be the ideal means to convert the energy of hydrogen into usable electricity—can be widely affordable. And since conversion of energy is never 100 percent efficient, converting energy from electricity (from solar or wind, for example) to hydrogen for storage before converting it back to electricity for final use will inevitably entail significant inefficiencies.
    The problems with hydrogen are so substantial that many analysts have by now concluded that its role in future energy systems will be limited (we are likely never to see a “hydrogen economy”), though for some applications it may indeed make sense."


    Basically, there are good reasons why there has not been a switch en masse to hydrogen: it is inferior to oil.
    I was aware that there were issues with hydrogen, like it's physical inability to be stored effectively, but not these specific ones. I mentioned it knowing it would not be an option.

    I know that coal can be manufactured artificially. And as expat states here it is a suitable stand in for oil. Which reminds me, what about coal?

  8. #8
    without the nose Cyrano's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Columbus, Ohio USA
    Posts
    1,013
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rick View Post
    I was going to start here with an exposition on the subject of Peak Oil and its implications, but I fear the subject has been belabored on the web. I think everyone knows what's going on by this point. Only the government keeps quiet on the subject. (For those who yet remain in the dark, cheap oil -- and other resources -- are running out, driving up the cost of everything and leading to what will be a permanent decline in economic production; the end of economic growth means eventual monetary crisis in every country with substantial national debt; monetary crisis means economic depression)

    My question is, how can people justify taking on any additional loans, including student loans, at this point in time? I recently learned that you can't just "default" on student loans and may be in debt slavery for decades to come, as well as family members who may have undersigned the loans.

    Does anybody honestly think the economy is going to "get better" and everyone will be able to get jobs again?

    How many recent graduates cannot find any job or are working at Starbucks for $8/hr. with no prospects for a higher paying job?

    How can one justify going into debt to pay for schooling that will not provide a return on investment?

    Do people realize what the risks of taking on college debt are?

    How can someone justify paying $20,000 a year to learn stuff you can learn for free from books, with the result of being miserable for years to come?

    So...what is your alternative to a college eduction? A degree is worth millions over a lifetime.
    ISTp
    SLI

    Enneagram 5 with a side of wings.

  9. #9
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,937
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    There are some peak-oil doomer articles on the web saying the 2008 economic crisis was primarily caused by the steep increase in oil prices preceeding it. Anyone know how seriously that should be taken?

  10. #10
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    North Italy
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    16,615
    Mentioned
    235 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by labcoat View Post
    There are some peak-oil doomer articles on the web saying the 2008 economic crisis was primarily caused by the steep increase in oil prices preceeding it. Anyone know how seriously that should be taken?
    It seems nonsensical, since firms (so, let's not talk about "big banks") were mostly damaged by a credit freeze, because banks didn't know if other banks had toxic assets in their balance sheet (thus, they didn't want to give each other loans, thus banks had to store high levels of "pure liquidity"). If oil prices were the cause, it would have been a demand-led crisis (prices would have shot up excessively, people wouldn't have had enough money to buy as much as before, etc. etc.).

    Anyway, from my perspective, US-UK style college debt looks like a massively irrational decision. My personal opinion is that this kind of system should encourage a stronger selection among college students, namely only rich people and those who manage to obtain a scholarship should actually go to college. A loan is an extremely risky choice.
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  11. #11
    07490's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    there
    Posts
    3,032
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fdg
    Anyway, from my perspective, US-UK style college debt looks like a massively irrational decision. My personal opinion is that this kind of system should encourage a stronger selection among college students, namely only rich people and those who manage to obtain a scholarship should actually go to college. A loan is an extremely risky choice.
    My professor this semester told us that YOU should never take loans out for college unless it's for a master degree. he end up still paying for school loans and I would say he is in his late 50's. The problem is that 18 years old doesn't know how to handle money in this magnitude. They think that they will never get a job because they started off in a public college/community college which is cheaper. and this is not true. It doesn't make sense to me to take out money to fulfill per-requisite that you can take in public college, and ONLY take out money if you are accepted to a professional phase of a program.
    (D)IEE~FI-(C)SLE~Ni E-5w4(Sp/Sx)/7w8(So/Sp)/9w1(sp/sx)

    Quote Originally Posted by Jarno View Post
    1)
    A girl who I want to date, asks me: well first tell me how tall you are?
    My reply: well I will answer that, if you first tell me how much you weigh!

    2)
    A girl I was dating said she was oh so great at sex etc, but she didn't do blowjobs.
    My reply: Oh I'm really romantic etc, I just will never take you out to dinner.

  12. #12
    Humanist Beautiful sky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    EII land
    TIM
    EII INFj
    Posts
    25,960
    Mentioned
    669 Post(s)
    Tagged
    6 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 07490 View Post
    My professor this semester told us that YOU should never take loans out for college unless it's for a master degree. he end up still paying for school loans and I would say he is in his late 50's. The problem is that 18 years old doesn't know how to handle money in this magnitude. They think that they will never get a job because they started off in a public college/community college which is cheaper. and this is not true. It doesn't make sense to me to take out money to fulfill per-requisite that you can take in public college, and ONLY take out money if you are accepted to a professional phase of a program.
    Then how will they go to school?
    -
    Dual type (as per tcaudilllg)
    Enneagram 2w1sw(1w9) helps others to live up to their own standards of what a good person is and is very behind the scenes in the process.
    Tritype 1-2-6 stacking sp/sx


    I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE

    Best description of functions:
    http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html

  13. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2005
    TIM
    D-LSI-Ti 1w9 sp/sx
    Posts
    11,529
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    UGH. God dammit, Rick.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rick View Post
    I was going to start here with an exposition on the subject of Peak Oil and its implications, but I fear the subject has been belabored on the web. I think everyone knows what's going on by this point. Only the government keeps quiet on the subject. (For those who yet remain in the dark, cheap oil -- and other resources -- are running out, driving up the cost of everything and leading to what will be a permanent decline in economic production; the end of economic growth means eventual monetary crisis in every country with substantial national debt; monetary crisis means economic depression)
    There will not be a permanent decline in economic activity. There is plenty of scientific research being done on alternatives to fossil fuels, and the economic incentive for profit will pretty much guarantee that one of them becomes popular and causes the economics cogs to start turning again.

    My question is, how can people justify taking on any additional loans, including student loans, at this point in time? I recently learned that you can't just "default" on student loans and may be in debt slavery for decades to come, as well as family members who may have undersigned the loans.
    Any time you take out a loan, you are taking on a risk. Before taking out a student loan, you should do research to determine how lucrative your chosen degree is and what the jobs market is like for people with that degree. A philosophy major, for example, has little business taking on such debt unless he values possessing the degree more than the freedom of not having to pay back the loan while working a crappy job. It all amounts to opportunity cost.

    Does anybody honestly think the economy is going to "get better" and everyone will be able to get jobs again?
    Of course it will. The problem right now is that the various Western governments are making the recovery take longer by fucking with the economic fundamentals of their respective economies. This is common sense. However, free market capitalism, though it can be slowed, has proven time and time again that it is robust enough to prosper in spite of substantial detrimental mitigating factors, like tariffs and government oversight.

    How many recent graduates cannot find any job or are working at Starbucks for $8/hr. with no prospects for a higher paying job?
    How many of these people will contribute to the inevitable economic recovery that will take place in the next five to ten years? You need to look at the big picture and determine if there is a net benefit to society in having these people educated despite the costs incurred.

    How can one justify going into debt to pay for schooling that will not provide a return on investment?
    Monetary return on investment? If there truly weren't any monetary return, then of course it would generally be foolish to take on such debt. However, most college degrees do result in costs being recovered and then some.

    Do people realize what the risks of taking on college debt are?
    Most of them do, but it's actually pretty easy to pay back $30,000 when you're making $40-50,000 a year out of college. It may take some years, but it's very doable.

    How can someone justify paying $20,000 a year to learn stuff you can learn for free from books, with the result of being miserable for years to come?
    You're missing the point. The reason people go to college is to earn a degree, not because they are somehow stuck on the false notion that classroom learning is the only way to become educated.

    College is about money for most people, but I agree that many subjects can be learned quite easily on one's own if you're willing to put forth the effort. I know that you speak like ten languages, I can fluently read Spanish from 100% self-study, and am also in calculus despite never taking a math class that went above basic algebra. However, you and I are also quite a bit smarter than the average person, so I am hesitant to hold other people up to these standards.

  14. #14
    Humanist Beautiful sky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    EII land
    TIM
    EII INFj
    Posts
    25,960
    Mentioned
    669 Post(s)
    Tagged
    6 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by discojoe View Post
    UGH. God dammit, Rick.



    There will not be a permanent decline in economic activity. There is plenty of scientific research being done on alternatives to fossil fuels, and the economic incentive for profit will pretty much guarantee that one of them becomes popular and causes the economics cogs to start turning again.



    Any time you take out a loan, you are taking on a risk. Before taking out a student loan, you should do research to determine how lucrative your chosen degree is and what the jobs market is like for people with that degree. A philosophy major, for example, has little business taking on such debt unless he values possessing the degree more than the freedom of not having to pay back the loan while working a crappy job. It all amounts to opportunity cost.

    Of course it will. The problem right now is that the various Western governments are making the recovery take longer by fucking with the economic fundamentals of their respective economies. This is common sense. However, free market capitalism, though it can be slowed, has proven time and time again that it is robust enough to prosper in spite of substantial detrimental mitigating factors, like tariffs and government oversight.



    How many of these people will contribute to the inevitable economic recovery that will take place in the next five to ten years? You need to look at the big picture and determine if there is a net benefit to society in having these people educated despite the costs incurred.



    Monetary return on investment? If there truly weren't any monetary return, then of course it would generally be foolish to take on such debt. However, most college degrees do result in costs being recovered and then some.



    Most of them do, but it's actually pretty easy to pay back $30,000 when you're making $40-50,000 a year out of college. It may take some years, but it's very doable.



    You're missing the point. The reason people go to college is to earn a degree, not because they are somehow stuck on the false notion that classroom learning is the only way to become educated.

    College is about money for most people, but I agree that many subjects can be learned quite easily on one's own if you're willing to put forth the effort. I know that you speak like ten languages, I can fluently read Spanish from 100% self-study, and am also in calculus despite never taking a math class that went above basic algebra. However, you and I are also quite a bit smarter than the average person, so I am hesitant to hold other people up to these standards.
    Te-judging the effectiveness of an undertaken task or project. *I can't help it. With you, it's like talking to a wall. Dense.*
    -
    Dual type (as per tcaudilllg)
    Enneagram 2w1sw(1w9) helps others to live up to their own standards of what a good person is and is very behind the scenes in the process.
    Tritype 1-2-6 stacking sp/sx


    I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE

    Best description of functions:
    http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    TIM
    LSE
    Posts
    17,948
    Mentioned
    162 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Maritsa33 View Post
    Te-judging the effectiveness of an undertaken task or project. *I can't help it. With you, it's like talking to a wall. Dense.*
    Yeah. Discojoe is the best example of an LSE on here.

  16. #16
    olduser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    5,721
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I'm disturbed by the fact that an education is something you buy in the United States.
    asd

  17. #17
    Humanist Beautiful sky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    EII land
    TIM
    EII INFj
    Posts
    25,960
    Mentioned
    669 Post(s)
    Tagged
    6 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by heath View Post
    I'm disturbed by the fact that an education is something you buy in the United States.
    me too
    Education should be free so that people can concentrate on their tallent and not feel stressed by finances.
    -
    Dual type (as per tcaudilllg)
    Enneagram 2w1sw(1w9) helps others to live up to their own standards of what a good person is and is very behind the scenes in the process.
    Tritype 1-2-6 stacking sp/sx


    I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE

    Best description of functions:
    http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html

  18. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2005
    TIM
    D-LSI-Ti 1w9 sp/sx
    Posts
    11,529
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by heath View Post
    I'm disturbed by the fact that an education is something you buy in the United States.
    I'm disturbed by your gross naivety about relying on the government for everything, despite the wealth of historical evidence that suggest this is always a bad idea.

    I'm also disturbed by the fact that you haven't yet drawn the obvious conclusion that the government is the reason education costs so much to begin with.

  19. #19
    olduser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    5,721
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by discojoe View Post
    I'm disturbed by your gross naivety about relying on the government for everything, despite the wealth of historical evidence that suggest this is always a bad idea.

    I'm also disturbed by the fact that you haven't yet drawn the obvious conclusion that the government is the reason education costs so much to begin with.
    1. I have never mentioned anywhere that I would like to rely on the government for everything. No one relies on the government for everything. I don't feel the government is necessarily evil. I'm interested in science, and there is a lot of credible scientific work done by public agencies, or created by public subsidies. for instance, the internet, although it is reasonably argued that the internet has taken its current form from commercialization, however, the government is generally much more willing to invest in unusual or fundamental research, which I appreciate as a person who appreciates knowledge. Fixing the government to your liking is going to help eliminate problems to the same degree letting the government take care of every problem would.

    2. I'm not aware of any education, private or public, in the USA, that isn't outrageously expensive. You'll simply say this is the government's fault. I can certainly see how this is partially the government's fault, but also the fault of major industries conferring with the government to keep people in debt, and thus in this country and working absurdly hard for fear of job loss. Also debt makes really great business. Both parties, government and big business, are against the majority of citizens of the United States.

    cheers if you want to have a non-explosive and non-frustrated conversation about this.
    asd

  20. #20
    Poster Nutbag The Exception's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    my own personal bubble
    TIM
    LII-Ne
    Posts
    4,097
    Mentioned
    103 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Here's a simple solution. Stop requiring degrees for so many jobs. Some of the necessary skills can self-taught or at least learned outside an educational institution. As long as the person has the necessary skills and demonstrated competence that's more important than any degree and think of all the money people could save.

    Of course that's going to be too radical for some.
    LII-Ne with strong EII tendencies, 6w7-9w1-3w4 so/sp/sx, INxP



  21. #21
    Park's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beyond the blue horizon
    TIM
    SLI-Si 8w9 sp/sx
    Posts
    13,421
    Mentioned
    186 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by warrior-librarian View Post
    Here's a simple solution. Stop requiring degrees for so many jobs. Some of the necessary skills can self-taught or at least learned outside an educational institution. As long as the person has the necessary skills and demonstrated competence that's more important than any degree and think of all the money people could save.

    Of course that's going to be too radical for some.
    Not saying we've had something better, but capitalism has turned out to be total fail. And people are too change-o-phobic and unwilling to make progress.
    Last edited by Park; 07-18-2010 at 03:48 AM.
    “Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”

    Quote Originally Posted by Gilly
    You've done yourself a huge favor developmentally by mustering the balls to do something really fucking scary... in about the most vulnerable situation possible.

  22. #22

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Florida
    TIM
    ILE 8w9
    Posts
    3,265
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rick View Post
    I was going to start here with an exposition on the subject of Peak Oil and its implications, but I fear the subject has been belabored on the web. I think everyone knows what's going on by this point. Only the government keeps quiet on the subject.
    I know a little bit about peak oil. I don't get too much into it because:

    1.) I am not a geologist

    2.) I have also heard rumors to the contrary with regard to how much natural resources there actually is.

    3.) There is only so much that you can prepare yourself for. I have been prepared for an economic collapse and a subsequent crime wave already except for buying property out in the country (which I am an idiot for not doing).

    Quote Originally Posted by Rick View Post
    (For those who yet remain in the dark, cheap oil -- and other resources -- are running out, driving up the cost of everything and leading to what will be a permanent decline in economic production; the end of economic growth means eventual monetary crisis in every country with substantial national debt; monetary crisis means economic depression)
    A lack of natural resources is not the cause of the current economic problems. That is another subject in itself.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rick View Post
    My question is, how can people justify taking on any additional loans, including student loans, at this point in time? I recently learned that you can't just "default" on student loans and may be in debt slavery for decades to come, as well as family members who may have undersigned the loans.
    The whole college deal is a scam that is in part promoted by corporations and banks.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rick View Post
    Does anybody honestly think the economy is going to "get better" and everyone will be able to get jobs again?
    No, not any time soon. I predict that there will be a whole crisis and depression in the west that will cause upheaval. In the east, there will be economic depression, but I actually do not think you will suffer a whole political realignment from it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rick View Post
    How many recent graduates cannot find any job or are working at Starbucks for $8/hr. with no prospects for a higher paying job?
    Many; I don't know the numbers exactly. I know of people who have graduated college here in the USA and make less money than I do (I am a "blue collar" worker).

    Quote Originally Posted by Rick View Post
    How can one justify going into debt to pay for schooling that will not provide a return on investment?
    It is not justifiable

    Quote Originally Posted by Rick View Post
    Do people realize what the risks of taking on college debt are?
    some do and some do not.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rick View Post
    How can someone justify paying $20,000 a year to learn stuff you can learn for free from books, with the result of being miserable for years to come?
    No, logically speaking it is not justifiable.

    ...


    The reason people go to college is this:

    1.) Because it is assumed that it is the safe way to go.

    2.) The baby boom generation in America thinks it will be the only way to get a "good" job.

    3.) People think they are actually going to make a lot of money once they graduate from college because historically that was the case. This is because there were no "arts" degrees, these were people who went to college to study medicine, engineering, etc. colleges came up with the idea of the liberal arts degree because colleges became big business in the last few decades and decided on how to keep students from dropping out so revenues would stay up.

    4.) Some people who go to college have this belief that they are going to make these connections into some industry world or some other elitist group of people, and then become famous overnight.

    5.) The reason (I think) women often go to college is because they think they are going to become that "strong career woman," or meet her future lawyer husband (or doctor, or whatever).

    6.) Some people legitimately do want to be an engineer, doctor, lawyer, etc. etc. etc. which is what college is for.
    "Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure, than to take rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in the gray twilight that knows not victory nor defeat."
    --Theodore Roosevelt

    "Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things that you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover."
    -- Mark Twain

    "Man who stand on hill with mouth open will wait long time for roast duck to drop in."
    -- Confucius

  23. #23
    Creepy-male

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jimbean View Post
    The reason people go to college is this:

    1.) Because it is assumed that it is the safe way to go.

    2.) The baby boom generation in America thinks it will be the only way to get a "good" job.

    3.) People think they are actually going to make a lot of money once they graduate from college because historically that was the case. This is because there were no "arts" degrees, these were people who went to college to study medicine, engineering, etc. colleges came up with the idea of the liberal arts degree because colleges became big business in the last few decades and decided on how to keep students from dropping out so revenues would stay up.

    4.) Some people who go to college have this belief that they are going to make these connections into some industry world or some other elitist group of people, and then become famous overnight.

    5.) The reason (I think) women often go to college is because they think they are going to become that "strong career woman," or meet her future lawyer husband (or doctor, or whatever).

    6.) Some people legitimately do want to be an engineer, doctor, lawyer, etc. etc. etc. which is what college is for.
    7) Their expensive liberal highschool education encourages them to go to University. (Though to be fair most of the people I know from my expensive liberal high school are going into, as you say, medicine, law, psychiatry, dentistry, etc; meanwhile I'm probably going to wind up in a dead-end white collar job with some government department, and that's truthfully the extent of my aspirations in life.)

    8) They lack the confidence or discipline (or both) to educate themselves.

    9) They've been raised on the belief that "you graduate from University and get a job" since they were little.

    ^^What applies to me personally, others may be the same^^

    But long story short, Rick, there are plenty of compelling "irrational" reasons to go through University. Understand that they're compelling quite apart from how illogical they seem. Most people are not logical or rational.

  24. #24
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,937
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FDG
    It seems nonsensical, since firms (so, let's not talk about "big banks") were mostly damaged by a credit freeze, because banks didn't know if other banks had toxic assets in their balance sheet (thus, they didn't want to give each other loans, thus banks had to store high levels of "pure liquidity"). If oil prices were the cause, it would have been a demand-led crisis (prices would have shot up excessively, people wouldn't have had enough money to buy as much as before, etc. etc.).

    Anyway, from my perspective, US-UK style college debt looks like a massively irrational decision. My personal opinion is that this kind of system should encourage a stronger selection among college students, namely only rich people and those who manage to obtain a scholarship should actually go to college. A loan is an extremely risky choice.
    There was a steep rise in the prices of a great deal of commodities beside oil, and the fact that subprime mortgages started getting defaulted on was initially the result of financial trouble on the part of individuals, possibly brought about by said rise in prices.

  25. #25
    Park's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beyond the blue horizon
    TIM
    SLI-Si 8w9 sp/sx
    Posts
    13,421
    Mentioned
    186 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LokiVanguard View Post
    The trends i'm seeing in my line of work are demand for experience that not only cannot easily be learned from a book, but also cannot easily be applied when you're halfway across the world. This goes for sys/net/db admins, security gurus... not so much for programmers, however.
    Trend-wise, would you also say programming seems more promising and reliable than networking?
    Last edited by Park; 07-18-2010 at 03:24 AM.
    “Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”

    Quote Originally Posted by Gilly
    You've done yourself a huge favor developmentally by mustering the balls to do something really fucking scary... in about the most vulnerable situation possible.

  26. #26
    Park's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Beyond the blue horizon
    TIM
    SLI-Si 8w9 sp/sx
    Posts
    13,421
    Mentioned
    186 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LokiVanguard View Post
    More promising as in better paid, or more jobs available in the future?

    For someone like me, I can't do programming 8 hours a day so it's not really an option. For more openings, programming beats it hands down, but a lot of these jobs tend to be mind numbing business database frontend programs. ugh!
    Yeah, I'm finding programming to be a bit dull and tedious at times. Just, too much ...
    “Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”

    Quote Originally Posted by Gilly
    You've done yourself a huge favor developmentally by mustering the balls to do something really fucking scary... in about the most vulnerable situation possible.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •