Puncturing the college bubble

Eventually the obvious percolates through to the mainstream:

The notion that a four-year degree is essential for real success is being challenged by a growing number of economists, policy analysts and academics. They say more Americans should consider other options such as technical training or two-year schools, which have been embraced in Europe for decades.

As evidence, experts cite rising student debt, stagnant graduation rates and a struggling job market flooded with overqualified degree-holders. They pose a fundamental question: Do too many students go to college?

In short, as I have been saying for years, yes. Education is a fine thing. Knowledge is wonderful. Most people aren’t actually interested in either. But what amused me most was this quote: “‘It’s sad to know she’s going to miss that mind-opening effect of an undergraduate degree,” Popkes said. “To discover new ideas, to become more worldly.'”

I don’t know how to break this gently to Mrs. Popkes. But there is nothing terribly mind-opening about learning how to do keg stands, provide adequate blow jobs, or do the walk of shame after getting banged silly by a drunken 20 year-old. And it is most certainly not worth an investment that is measured in tens of thousands of dollars. Frankly, her daughter could obtain all that vital knowledge for free in a single night at the right suburban house party.

Striking a chord

I’m not a big fan of politicians, to say the least. And even the best of them are usually capable of turning around and selling out both their principles and their constituencies. But, I have to admit, I kind of like what I’ve seen of this guy. Anyone who can summon up such instinctive and dismissive sarcasm in refusing to suffer journalistic fools will tend to strike a positive chord with me:

Gov Christie calls S-L columnist thin-skinned for inquiring about his 'confrontational tone'

The Madness Season cometh

The harsh and unforgiving realities of history, economics, sociobiology, mathematics, and socionomics are all pointing firmly to the same conclusion:

The irony is that in the course of dismantling millennia of biologically-grounded cultural tradition and enacting their hypergamous sexual utopia, women have unwittingly made life more difficult for all but the most attractive of them. The result has been more cougars, more sluts, and more demand for DNA paternity testing. To prevent this edifice from crumbling under its own weight entirely, massive redistributive payments from men to women in the form of welfare, alimony, punitive child support (even from men who aren’t the biological fathers!), female- and child-friendly workplaces, legal injustice (women in general do not give a shit about justice), corporate-sponsored daycare, PC extortion, sexual harassment claims, and divorce theft have had to be ruthlessly administered and enforced by the thugs of the rapidly metastasizing elite-created police state. Remove these security and resource transfers and safety nets and you will see the feminist utopia crumble within one generation…. an alpha cock carousel that spins relentlessly until society crumbles under the weight of declining productive native population, rising orc horde populations, and wildings by all those fatherless bastard boys raised by empowered single moms.

It’s all so clear as day and yet our so-called smarties continue jabbering about comparative advantage, relationship complementarity, and immigration-fueled cheap chalupas. It’s funny until the pleasurecrats and statusticians have no gated communities left in which to escape.

And then it’s hilarious.

It is interesting to see how an intelligent observer who has chosen a very different path than I have, personally, professionally, and philosophically, has been noting precisely the same problems at work in the decline of the West. I pay far less attention to the whys and wherefores of the feminist utopia than others who recognize its destructive, dystopian nature, but my background in economics has given me the ability to see how just how fragile is the foundation that momentarily supports it. But the Dark Lord’s choice is to toast marshmallows as Rome burns whereas I prefer to plant seeds in the hope of an eventual rebirth of civilization. Now, nothing goes straight up or straight down; the pre-Greece optimism is a perfect example of Wave 2 optimism that we will see, again and again, amidst the long march to a bottom that will probably not take place for decades, or if we are unfortunate, centuries.

But even if global civilization collapses, pockets of civilization will survive. The Church will survive. God’s grand experiment will continue. That is why I have concluded that despair and nihilism, even the hedonistic nihilism of the sort that the Dark Lord expounds, is not the answer.

As predicted

The mainstream media has gradually moved from discussing a jobless recovery to the “Great Recession” and is now beginning to contemplate a Great Depression 2.0.  Robert Samuelson is among the first:

It is now conventional wisdom that the world has avoided a second Great Depression. Governments and the economists who advise them learned the lessons of the 1930s. When the gravity of the financial crisis became apparent in late 2008, the response was swift and aggressive. Central banks like the Federal Reserve and the European Central Bank dropped interest rates and lent liberally to threatened financial institutions and rattled investors. The United States and many countries approved “stimulus” programs of tax cuts and additional spending. Panic was halted. A downward spiral of falling private spending and rising unemployment was reversed. The resulting economic slump was awful. But it was not another Great Depression. The worst has passed.

Or has it? Greece’s plight challenges this optimistic interpretation. It implies that celebration is premature and that the economic crisis has moved into a new phase: one dominated by the huge debt burdens of governments in advanced societies. Comparisons with the Great Depression remain relevant — and unsettling. Now, as then, we may be prisoners of deep and poorly understood changes to the world economic system.

As I explained in the book, the problem is debt combined with the fact that neither Keynesian nor Monetarist economics place much significance on it.  Even now, you will find some stubborn neo-Keynesians insisting that debt is good, that it cannot possibly be the root of the problem.  As Karl Denninger has repeatedly shown, their attempts to explain the situation demonstrate little more than their ignorance of simple mathematics as well as political economy.

The massive sovereign debts can never be repaid.  Nor can many of the private and corporate debts.  So, once the burden of servicing them becomes too great, they must be eliminated with either default or hyperinflation.  The frantic efforts of the various Western governments to shovel nearly $1 trillion into the maws of the desperate bankers is little more than an attempt to buy a little more time in the futile hope that the magical revival of Keynesian animal spirits will trump the inexorable mathematics.