Implanting Bill Gates's Micro-chips In Brains For Over 20 Years!

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

This highlights one of the biggest problems with social equity mindsets. Research grants are an investment. If you're trying to cure cancer, you don't send a hundred million to Ball State to pretend there's a semblance of parity with Harvard. Harvard is superior for variety of reasons, so instead of DEI, focus on ROI.

This is just saying because Harvard and MIT get way more than any other place they have the “best” researchers. If we limited the amount any school gets maybe the researchers will self adjust?

I mean Harvard is the best is no different than white kids start on 3rd base.

[pony_trekker]

Originally Posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?

I won't defend the past (because the pension issues are indeed a mess), but based on conversations I've had from people who have moved here from Georgia, Texas, and other lesser taxed states, you get a decent return on your (high) taxes here in the form of: great (suburban) public schools, great park districts and great forest preserves.

The people who have moved here said that they would have paid significantly more in their previous states because they would have needed to send their kids to expensive private schools to match the education they're getting here.

One of my good friends moved to Washington (state), and he said his local park district offers about 1/3 of the activities for kids as his old (my) suburb.

It's not perfect by any means, but I complain less about the taxes than i used to.

I like living in a neighborhood where the kids know how to read.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally Posted by pony_trekker

I like living in a neighborhood where the kids know how to read.

Right? Our neighborhood isn't perfect. But when I hear people complaining about kids not playing outside or riding their bikes around anymore, I feel bad for them. I'm still seeing the same thing I experienced in the '80s (except we admittedly had more freedom - my parents had no idea what I was doing when I wasn't at home).

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

This is just saying because Harvard and MIT get way more than any other place they have the “best” researchers. If we limited the amount any school gets maybe the researchers will self adjust?

I mean Harvard is the best is no different than white kids start on 3rd base.

I don't think it's just the money Ivies get that causes their high research ROI. Like it or not, in terms of hard sciences, schools at that level attract the best and brightest worldwide. A kid getting a poli sci degree from an Ivy is probably not much different than one getting a similar degree from Iowa State. But a geneticist studying bespoke immunotherapies for cancer? You and I both know Harvard's going to have more off-the-charts smart kids from a global talent pool likely to be working on that sort of thing.

Is that an incumbency bias? Sure. But it isn't going to be undone by merely giving more money to other less prestigious schools. That sort of bias is really hard to undo. Branding, credentialism, humans being aspirational, etc.

Most of life isn't terribly complex, and smart doesn't = successful. But, while a Rolex and a Timex both do the same thing with roughly the same precision, most folks will still gravitate to the one that confers the most status to the broadest audience.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?

I won't defend the past (because the pension issues are indeed a mess), but based on conversations I've had from people who have moved here from Georgia, Texas, and other lesser taxed states, you get a decent return on your (high) taxes here in the form of: great (suburban) public schools, great park districts and great forest preserves.

The people who have moved here said that they would have paid significantly more in their previous states because they would have needed to send their kids to expensive private schools to match the education they're getting here.

One of my good friends moved to Washington (state), and he said his local park district offers about 1/3 of the activities for kids as his old (my) suburb.

It's not perfect by any means, but I complain less about the taxes than i used to.

I live in a neighborhood with an excellent public school. And this state is not a financial disaster.

Pritzker is presiding over a state that so mismanaged it has often been described as not merely bankrupt, but nearly insolvent.

It is not his fault, you are correct. And the issue isn't taxes. I don't think Pritzker could ever tax enough to fix Illinois. If all of Chicago were taxed at 100% for a couple years, the income still wouldn't appreciably dent the state pension obligations.

A whole lotta people kicked the can for a whole lotta years, and now, like the US, the state is running out of road to kick it down any further.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

like the US... is running out of road to kick it down any further.

You know that is not remotely true, right? I mean, unless we tariff/mismanage our way out of the being the world's reserve currency...

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

You know that is not remotely true, right? I mean, unless we tariff/mismanage our way out of the being the world's reserve currency...

Then why don't we just borrow endlessly? Why even keep tabs on the debt, let alone the debt ceiling?

MMT is nonsense.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Then why don't we just borrow endlessly? Why even keep tabs on the debt, let alone the debt ceiling?

MMT is nonsense.

MMT is... not right but does have something to say about whether we are too concerned about debt.

There is absolutely no point to the debt ceiling and we should get rid of it.

We effectively do borrow endless. There are, of course, limits on that but they are market forces, but budgetary or legislative ones.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

MMT is... not right but does have something to say about whether we are too concerned about debt.

There is absolutely no point to the debt ceiling and we should get rid of it.

We effectively do borrow endless. There are, of course, limits on that but they are market forces, but budgetary or legislative ones.

What do you think I'm referring to when I say we're out of runway to issue more debt? I'm not talking about the debt ceiling, or any budgetary or legislative issue.

If we can issue debt endlessly, then why tax? Relatively, a small chunk of the infinite is no different than a big one.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

If we can issue debt endlessly, then why tax?

Why would anyone buy our bonds if we don't tax?