Forum Post: Study Something Useless, Have Trouble Repaying Your Debts
Posted 12 years ago on Jan. 28, 2012, 12:30 p.m. EST by Ninetyninenot
(-57)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Judging by the whining over student loans, apparently they skipped No Shit 101 where they cover this stuff. Here's a great example of something useless. See, taking classes like this with borrowed money is a recipe for living in your parents basement as you pay off $70k in debt with a job at Starbucks. People that invest in legitimate classes have, get ready, fewer problems with money later. Honest, it's true.
http://blog.chron.com/celebritybuzz/2012/01/beyonce-is-the-subject-of-new-college-course/
debt = money. So, more debt = more money. This is a good thing no? the economy does not work unless we are up to our eyeballs in debt. Who needs legitimate classes? We just need to get as many people as possible in debt and keep them there.
I doubt if you think anything at all. Not all money is debt. In fact if you said debt=money I could also say the exact opposite asset= money.
sure, ok. asset = money = debt.
and you know what.. at least I am trying to understand what is going on. And I do think about it. And the more I think about it, the more I hate it.
From zerohedge: "But who will bailout the world's central banks which already collectively hold over 30% of global GDP in the form of "assets", or as this term is better known these days, debt?"
Central banks go bust only under extreme circumstances, like Greece or Argentina many years ago. If these assets that the central banks hold go bust altogether, then there would be a problem. But the problem would not be the central banks going bust, it would be the assets fail. Central banks going bust would be a fallout of that.
No, debt is denominated in money. So are assets. Money represents the value of what you have and what you've borrowed.
Who need legitimate classes? Ahh, it's pretty clear that you do.
Debt is a choice. Funny how that little piece of reality has utterly escaped so many.
Heresy! What would happen to the economy if all the interest the bankers were counting on, suddenly disappeared? A debt free society would likely be the end of capitalism as we know it.
No, it wouldn't. Finance is an industry. If people borrowed less, it would shrink just like lodging or airlines if people decided to travel less. Money spent on interest, would be invested (driving down the cost of borrowing) or spent on something else creating growth elsewhere.
We'd also have a more stable economy as people would have more resilience in bad times and we'd have fewer whiney blamers. Another win.
Invested? There would be no return on investment if those suckers were not paying interest on borrowed money. Exactly where do you think money comes from?
Sure there would be. It's called equity.
There is more than a grain of truth in what you say! I was laughing when I read this, I think that it now almost a social responsibility to mentor a teen who is thinking about taking out loans....to steer them towards educational choices which are both meaningful and less expensive
It's fascinating just how far the responsibility slide and debt culture had taken us. I just didn't realize how pervasive the abandonment of what used to pass for obvious had become. It simply didn't occur to me that so many could've been so utterly foolish.
The good news is that a restoration of exceedingly simple ideas can do so much to make things better. For example, maybe students should take No Shit 101 during the summer after high school.
Nintyninenobrain, you never played musical chairs did you? If a third of the chairs are removed (which the bankster parasites have done) a third of the players will remain standing. Duh!!!!
Yeah, they should just lend more. Giving a shit about repayment is wrong of them. LOL.
No stupido, the economy should be restructured as a small business economy (a jobs economy) not a bankster looting economy.
Such propaganda. They just need to balance what the produce with what they consume; they need to live without the fudge factor of what they borrowed. Borrowed money can longer compensate for the drain of the welfare state and a productivity draining government class with its entitlements.
It's a course and not a major. Film and "stars" have been used periodically in other courses. Considering that major topics are centered around sexuality, marketing and the line between herself and herself as a product it shouldn't raise eyebrows especially if you are looking at how that relates to women's studies.
Sure, it isn't unusual; these kinds of fraudulent classes have spread out and dopey students with pockets stuffed with borrowed money have been really bad consumers. Of course, in this case it's a fraudulent class inside a fraudulent department.
Maybe liberals should set Elizabeth Warren on this one. LOL. Maybe that department should make students sign a statement that taking their classes with borrowed money is a risky consumer decision.
though the Idea Of studying one person and theorizing about the social implications of that person's success would be a bad major, I don't see no different in a class based on a pop star's success, or Job's success. The course is a class in critical thinking not a gateway to a major. Now, if some one majored in Beyonce, I'd have to laugh at them.
Find a class that involves critical thinking that's on something of substance. That exists too. If you're borrowing money to pay for it, you're a better consumer than to take a class like this. They cover this stuff in No Shit 101 which apparently needs to be a Freshman requirement.
Do you have any data pointing to the % of people who are whining about student loans (and are unemployed), who took silly courses in college? Or is this just your anecdotal assumption, based on nothing more than your personal biases and lack of mathematical rigor in your own academic training?
I'm going to leave that up to you. If you really do think that what you spend, what you borrow, what you study and future prospects for repayment, whining and living in your parents' basement are all random, I can't much help you.
I'm not the one making affirmative claims without any empirical basis. It's sort of like making a claim that you witnessed a celestial tea pot floating in the space near Jupiter, and when I ask you for empirical evidence, you're response is ... "proving me wrong is your responsibility" (and in that thing you call a brain this somehow qualifies as evidence that you're claim is true).
Duhh ...
It's really just a big mystery. LOL. Make yours No Shit 101 and 102.
Who defines what is useful?
Taking today's "useful" courses, that will be off shored to India, by the time you graduate?
I've met more than a few of those.
So many posts, and still no definition?
Who or what, defines what will be "useful" 4-6 years from today?
[Removed]