This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Delaying College in Today's Economy is a Smart Choice
After watching the fantastic “I would recommend you panic”
video with Hugh Hendry posted on Zero Hedge earlier today, I decided to search
the archives of past-dated interviews with Mr. Hendry. Why? Because the
establishment has such a one-sided agenda of hiding the truth from the public
that their modus operandi is always the same when confronted with the truth in
present day. The establishment which includes Finance Ministers, Treasury
Secretaries, and yes, Nobel Prize winning economists, always attempts to
ridicule anyone that exposes their fraudulent analysis and expresses dissension
to their establishment views. In retrospect, when we listen to their past arguments,
we can always expose their views as propaganda and their ridicule of opposition
views as an attempt to maintain their veneer of lies and deceit.
For example, consider some of US Federal Reserve Chairman
Ben Bernanke’s famous predictions.
June 20th, 2007 – “[The Subprime Crisis] will not affect the
economy overall.'' - US Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke
June 9th, 2008 – “Despite a recent spike in the nation's
unemployment rate, the danger that the economy has fallen into a
"substantial downturn" appears to have waned.” - US Federal Reserve
Chairman Ben Bernanke
Consider establishment Princeton University professor and
Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman’s claims from September 2, 2009:
“There was nothing in the prevailing [economic] models
suggesting the possibility of the kind of collapse that happened last year.”
Now consider this exchange between Eclectica Asset
Management CEO Hugh Hendry and Columbia University professor and Nobel Prize
winning economist Joseph Stiglitz below that occurred on February 9, 2010.
Mr. Stiglitz ubelievably denies the fact that citizens are
bailing out governments and banks even though governments and banks are tapping
and draining the wealth of citizens through their bailout and austerity plans
and clever new tax schemes. He says that “a bailout is what happened, uh, for
Citibank, with the financial institutions, where, uh, they couldn’t, uh, they
owed more than their assets.” He goes on to make the argument that the US can
never accrue too great a debt because they have a printing press and can
perpetually devalue the dollar and print as many dollars as need be to pay the
interest on their debt (translation: Stiglitz supports Americans being placed
into infinite debt if that is the only way to prevent a default of US sovereign
debt) – an argument that either:
(1) reveals Stiglitz’s failure to see the
fraudulent nature of the monetary system; or
(2) exposes him as a puppet of the
bankers.
If the US government was a real person named Uncle Sam, everyone would
call Uncle Sam bankrupt and Uncle Sam would be unable to obtain a loan from any
bank in the world. If the Greek government was a real person named Alexander
Markopolous, everyone would call that person bankrupt. But to Stiglitz,
governments never have to be bailed out, because in theory, governments can
print as much money as they want out of thin air, despite the treacherous
implications upon their citizens of doing so. Four months ago, he said, “there’s no problem with
Greece or Spain meeting their interest payments.”
Hendry states that Stiglitz is utterly wrong in his
assessments and interrupts Stiglitz by hilariously responding, “Hello. Can I
tell you about the real world?”
Banking shills like Joseph Stiglitz always argue that the problems of
the global economic and monetary system are not with a fundamentally flawed
system, but that the problems are merely just one of confidence. Sound
familiar? (remember former US Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson’s similarly
structured arguments.) Stiglitz argues that everything that is wrong with the
monetary system will go away if only people would get on board the propaganda
machine and just believe that the system is okay.
With the benefit of nearly four additional months since that
debate, the debate between Stiglitz and Hendry reveals Stiglitz as a propaganda
tool for governments and bankers and Hendry as the champion of reality. Hendry exposes the very reasons I have
repeatedly stated the most education, especially a business education, at the
world’s most prominent institutions, is utterly worthless. Why pay hundreds of
thousands of dollars to attend re-education classes?
In my Wealth Secrets course, I state, “If you were to study
the history of academia, you would realize that elite bankers, and in
particular, the Rockefellers, provided the funding for much of the
institutional educational boards, from the General Educational Board in America
as well as the International Education Board. As such, they ensured that
employees of the international global banking cartel occupied the boards of
nearly every major institution of learning in the world from the early 1900’s
onward, and directly influenced, as well as decided, what economic and monetary
concepts would be taught to young adults worldwide…For this reason, obtaining
an education in business or economics from Harvard or Princeton, outside of the
connections you make, will hinder your ability to build wealth far more than it
can possibly ever contribute to it.”
According to a recent eHealth survey conducted in the US,
73% of students believe that they'll have a career-related job within a
reasonable amount of time after graduation, though only 41 percent of recent
graduates report having actually found a career-related job within three years
of graduation. According to CollegeGrad.com, due to the lack of available jobs in the US, 80 percent of
the graduating class of college kids moved back home with their parents after
receiving their diploma in 2009, up from 77 percent in 2008, 73 percent in
2007, and 67 percent in 2006. According to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics,
in 2010, 2.4 million graduates along with 15 million unemployed (not even
considering the millions more that are underemployed) will compete for 2.7
million available positions. So on
average, a minimum of 6.4 Americans will compete for every available job without the
conditions that that particular job may even be among the applicant's desired jobs. In Spain, as is the case in many other countries worldwide, the
employment conditions are even worse than those that exist inside the US.
Nearly everything I learned at the University of
Pennsylvania was utterly worthless to what I do today because my education actually
prevented me, at the time, from truly understanding how financial and monetary
markets really work. Thus, I would grade my educational experience as less than
zero regarding my ability to understand, as Hendry so eloquently put it,
"the real world". Actually having zero benefit would have been
better, but in retrospect, my education hindered my understanding of how
financial and monetary markets truly work. My exposure to countless discussions with Wharton students
about finance while in school and with Wharton and Harvard business graduates
in the many years since I’ve graduated only confirms my belief that top
institutions of learning reinforce propaganda, and not reality, in their
business curricula.
In a July, 2006 interview, Hendry flippantly remarked, “No
one wants to work with me. I’m a trouble-maker. I’m a bit of a circus freak.”
Though Hendry was likely being self-deprecating in that comment, there is an
underlying current of truth in his words. The establishment views anyone that
tells the truth and exposes their lies and faulty arguments as a trouble-maker
and attempts to discredit and ostracize that person. If you are of the age where you are about to enter
university, I would highly recommend reconsidering that decision, particularly
if you are about to pursue a business degree.
Since college students are already likely to end up living
back at home with their parents
after they graduate as the job horizon will appear no better in four years than
it is today (unless you believe the drivel of government officials and
economists), why not spend that time immersed in self-education of how the
financial and monetary systems really work? In the process, students will save
their parents tens of thousands, or even hundreds of thousands of dollars, in
tuition and save themselves the fate of being a sheep led to the slaughter by
banking shills like Joseph Stiglitz, Paul Krugman and Jeffrey Sachs.
Furthermore, students will be much better prepared to face the ongoing global
economic crisis from not only a financial perspective but also from an
educational perspective.
So here's my advice, prospective students. Go talk to people
with similar sensibilities to Hendry. Run! I assure you that spending two hours
with someone like Hendry will enlighten you a hundred times more about how financial
and currency markets really operate versus four years at Harvard, Columbia or
Princeton. As Mr. Hendry so astutely noted in the aformentioned "I would recommend you panic" debate with Columbia University's economist Jeffrey Sachs, if Sachs's flawed analysis turns out to be wrong, those that followed the advice of economists like Sachs may face financial ruin while it is very unlikely that Sachs will lose his tenure at Columbia for being wrong. Lay your chips where you may.
About the author: JS Kim is the Chief Investment Strategist
and Managing Director of SmartKnowledgeU, LLC, a fiercely independent wealth
consultancy company that guides investors in the best ways to invest in gold and silver
through the progression of this global financial crisis. His Crisis Investment
Opportunities newsletter has significantly beat all major developed stock
market indexes since the first day of its launch, outperforming the Australian
ASX 200, the UK FTSE 100 & the US S&P 500 each by more than 140% to 150% (*in a tax-deferred
account). JS also maintains an investment blog, the Underground Investor,
in which he presents financial knowledge rarely covered by the mainstream
media.
The above article may be reprinted on other sites provided
all text and links are kept intact, including the above author acknowledgment.
“
»
- advertisements -
The fact that Stiglitz is wrong doesn't mean you should not go to college and instead spend your money on SmartKnowledgeU, what ever the fuck that is. It means you should get a good education AND learn to think for yourself. This whole thing is nothing but an advertisement.
Higher education in the U.S. is not a right but a privilege. Before the loan shark College loan programs became available, the privileged (or very determined) got educated. This gave them an advantage over the unwashed masses. The advantage of a degree now is questionable even in the touted engineering fields. We will see about medical.
The arguments for higher education have been to gain entry to higher pay, and to expand the mind with entry into new areas. The first argument of the writer was that the job field (like old cars) is being crushed and getting more compacted for the older models. It is true, and the forecast for a lost decade may be two decades. We may be manufacturing a bunch of educated widgets and no where to sell them. Educated widgets with too much time on their hands may lead to who knows what. Maybe new inventions and ideas that will revolutionize the world, or another Che that will revolutionize the world. That is the run of the mill widget. The brighter widgets can make new math for the financial programs and become better masters and spin makers for Wall and Wash.
The cost of higher education is shared in the public institutions by the politicians and the student/parent. The student/parent has financial pressure and the politicians are pulling education money for “other” needs. Engineering courses in some California Universities are so restricted that 5 years to 51/2 years is now expected to get a degree. Of course there are no jobs so the widget gets to pay for 2 to 3 semesters more of education while the University hold them out of the marketplace.
The concept of limited information and education for the population is timeless. It works, so it must be correct. We are in for a major destruction of the middle class.
Higher education in the U.S. is not a right but a privilege. Before the loan shark College loan programs became available, the privileged (or very determined) got educated. This gave them an advantage over the unwashed masses. The advantage of a degree now is questionable even in the touted engineering fields. We will see about medical.
The arguments for higher education have been to gain entry to higher pay, and to expand the mind with entry into new areas. The first argument of the writer was that the job field (like old cars) is being crushed and getting more compacted for the older models. It is true, and the forecast for a lost decade may be two decades. We may be manufacturing a bunch of educated widgets and no where to sell them. Educated widgets with too much time on their hands may lead to who knows what. Maybe new inventions and ideas that will revolutionize the world, or another Che that will revolutionize the world. That is the run of the mill widget. The brighter widgets can make new math for the financial programs and become better masters and spin makers for Wall and Wash.
The cost of higher education is shared in the public institutions by the politicians and the student/parent. The student/parent has financial pressure and the politicians are pulling education money for “other” needs. Engineering courses in some California Universities are so restricted that 5 years to 51/2 years is now expected to get a degree. Of course there are no jobs so the widget gets to pay for 2 to 3 semesters more of education while the University hold them out of the marketplace.
The concept of limited information and education for the population is timeless. It works, so it must be correct. We are in for a major destruction of the middle class.
Delaying College in Today's Economy is a Smart Choice" _NOT
1.There is a world of difference between College in "liberal arts" and fact based studies rooted in the determinant laws of natural science or mathematics. Real logic is, of course, important but that is normally a part of the package. Some people have special facilities of mind and may not benefit as much as others from college as the average person. Bill Gates obviously didn’t need Harvard. I had a classmate that could multiply two three digit numbers in his head. He would, no doubt, been successful no matter what. But an engineering education gave him a platform for a prosperous, comfortable existence.
Boring? I guess that depends upon your interest but I found, going through life, that the "Laws of Natural Science", "Mother Nature's Laws" , "God's Law's or whatever you want to call the rules for the way that things happen in the real physical world, (I can testify) haven't changed in the last half century. Development of the nuances of those rules has continued so that today they are much more elaborate. A desktop computer is a lot faster than a slide rule with great stacks of paper. But what we use in the world of today is developed from what existed then. People who can operate in this world are in demand at decent salaries and will likely always be. If there is interest, there will be time for liberal arts later. History can be a good study if it is fact based history. A few of my fellow engineering students became patent attorneys. And applications for science based studies include Medicine.
2. The age bracket of 16 through 22 is a fertile time for expansion, growth and development of the mental tools for dealing with the world around us. In this age bracket people are still becoming. Later on, what the person became will just be getting trained for a particular application. It will be a lot harder to actually become.
When we are stressed, we go back. The harder we are stressed, the further back we go. If an individual’s reasoning tools are rooted in sound principals and slightly stressful robust course work, that person will be much better equipped to deal with the world he is in.
IMO, rigorous collage courses should be subsidized. Economic incentive would go a long way toward creating interest in rigorous “college” courses leading to a life in medicine, engineering or the sciences.
A “Vision Systems Design just crossed my desk with an article “Simplifying Automotive Assembly” Summary “3-D vision-guided robotic system combines with LED lighting, laser line generators, contact sensors, and PLC to precisely place front ends.”
Who needs College?
Actually I think the right calculation is more like this:
If you get into a very top school - go.
If you get someone else to pay for it - go.
If you think you can get credentialed in a hard math or science discipline - go.
Otherwise, these days anyway, you're wasting money and/or not learning anything but bullshit. Go get a government job (any government job will do), find a public sector employee to get you pregnant or both.
You are kind of on point. If one can get into a Harvard, Princeton, Yale, Wharton or one of their ilk, then it is worthwhile, provided that one realises the greatest value in the experience lies precisely in the connexions one makes. There is still some value in the so-called "education" one receives at these fine institutions (where else are you going to learn to sling the jargon with the right amount of doe-eyed gusto?).
If you are going to State U to get an MBA, you are indeed wasting your time and money. You may as well take a temp job, show that you are a hard worker with a bit of brainpower, and you may very well land that dream job before the grad who is too proud to take the entry level job that leads to that "career relevant" job. But oh, if only you had gotten into the Ivies and had met the right people.
If you can't become a noble, I guess it is still better a freeman, I guess, than a debt slave.
Big Kahuna has it right. Study the physical sciences and agricultural sciences, or medicine. A degree in Communuications or English, or Women's Studies will be even more useless than it is already. You're better off studying engineering and then learning how to patch up failing infrastructure with whatever materials happen to be on hand. Or knowing how to deal with cabbage loopers when your future depends on it. Or concocting anaesthetics from local plants. <wink, wink>
Today's Marketing majors will be tomorrow's penniless beggars.
Study math. It teaches you how to think logically and sequentially using known facts to arrive at a true conclusion. Once you know how to think like that, you'll be better equipped to spot bullshit and dodge it as it comes flying at your face. Armed with the ability to think critically, you are able to educate yourself with greater efficiency.
Come to think of it, mathematics may be the opposite of economics in that regard.
I agree but I will always have respect for those who choose to study history. I often find the work of historians far more enlightening than that of an economist.
Is it bad that I view my Masters Degree as just another certificate to collect?
I don't think I enjoy course work anymore and would rather spend an hour reading a book.
LOL. I totally feel you man. I'm feeling the same way about my coursework as well. I'm still undergrad, but going to graduate next year.
I spend more time reading Hayek, Rothbard, etc, and doing market research and master's level finance work than I do on my classwork.
School is a joke. It's SO easy. It's boring, but that doesn't mean you can't still get straight A's and read books that you'd rather be reading anyway...
This is the same Stiglitz that called the subprime asset bubble and liquidity crunch in the summer of '07, yes?
I majored in Econ at a state school. All of it was a waste of time.I should have just played online poker.
The ARMY will pay your child's student loans if they are able to qualify for Officer Candidate School.
Might be worth it if we have a significant deflationary environment or worthless if we have massive inflation.
On the positive side, the leadership training would be a plus. Many of my generation are softies that can't defend themselves or their families.
On the negative side, a premature death. I wonder what the casualty rates are for officers, probably not drastically more than a car accident if they were to be living in your basement for the next decade.
so my college Econ 101 classes were a complete waste of time ? ;-P
Econ classes have been my favorite classes in school so far. If anything, they're way interesting.
I really didn't realize just how stupid Stiglitz is. No, actually I know he is not stupid, but you sure can tell who is signing his checks. I even sensed that he didn't believe what he was saying.
I must say I like this Hendry fellow more and more every time I see him. I especially liked seeing the grin on his face when asked if he would make millions if the Greek financial crisis continued to deteriorate. That's showbiz folks.
And you probably believe that hedge funds "disseminate information" in our market too, sucker chump.
It is probably too late for people who are in the university--but for those approaching it...take the hard classes in secondary school--even if your grades suffer. Go to the university and retake the same classes (calc, physics, advanced chem) and get a degree that sets you apart--engineering, archetecture, or go be a medical professional. Don't bother with much else though. No English degrees either. If anything, get Chinese, Russian, or French perhaps--you should already know some Spanish. If you work hard-your degree will carry you through some tough spots. If you don't, be prepared to rely on your "brilliant personality" LOL!!!
I took calculus and astrophysics (which was an elective) and I got A's in both. Also, I'm a business major.
They're not really that hard as classes. I mean really. I got a 99 in calc I and a 97 in calc II, and a 103 in astrophysics...
Chemistry is a little bit harder. My girlfriend actually got her first B in college in Honors Organic Chemistry II. She's going to be a pharm D. I'm going to be a tax accountant.
Really Johnny Bravo. Are you sure you're not a 20 year old lesbian cheerleader at Fluff U on yahoo chat.
Very cool. Best of luck to both of you--we need people to help other people re-claim the funds that the fed attempts to confiscate:-)
"All that's missing is baby Jesus"
Good analogy, but consider a slight twist:
god = almighty dollar
Obama = baby Jesus leading the way to god (free money) for the true believers.....
Oh, the sacriledge!!
Great idea! Save the money to fund a business. But they should study a variety of subjects (history, science) as well as useful skills (elk hunting, carpentry). I have a recent college grad. doing odd jobs while he looks for his dream job (pharma sales). He is not all that handy because in his upbringing he only studied soccer and golf with any intensity. He is a 35 yrs. old babe-in-the-woods.
You don't really expect college bound young adults to give up 4 years of drunken debauchery just to save their parents thousands of dollars do you? Did you somehow miss seeing the movie Animal House?
And since the business school model is built upon the Rockefeller school of economics and banking, and the corporations and banks that run the corrupt oligarchy use the Rockefeller paradigm. Isn't it prudent to learn the system most in use if you have hopes and dreams of becoming gainfully employed by those very same corporations. I would think you would stick out like a sore thumb if you tried to buck the current system.
But, I find it rather ironic that the very students dreaming of careers in the corporate world have yet to find out that the corporations they hope to work for are busily outsourcing their jobs to China, India and Mexico, or insourcing the labor at cheaper wages just so the CEO can garnish a larger quarterly bonus.
The blue collar workers have already discovered this painfull fact of life, and now the smiling cherubs at our universities of higher learning are going to be introduced to the same painful lessons on graduation day.
Who says that it has to be "their parents" money, or even that they have to EITHER get an education OR learn about the financial markets?
Those are all false choices.
I'm getting a business degree right now. I pay CASH every semester with the money I made working, and then trading. I'm a little bit older than the average college student, but still in my 20s.
It's not my parents' money, and I do plenty to supplement my education with "real economics" or whatever you people think you're talking about.
In fact, it was trading that has allowed me to have enough money to pay my tuition until I graduate. Maybe I'll have to borrow a few thousand bucks, but in the end, is a few grand (as in less than ten, probably less than five) in debt really such a bad thing when my earning power will be increased with my degree?
What would you people suggest anyway? That young people stop bettering themselves, work at McDonald's and buy physical bullion while reading zerohedge? That doesn't seem very viable or productive to me...
I guess that the main issues I have with the premises of the article is that it assumes that college kids get their money from their parents (most I know don't) and that you can't go to school and read books in your spare time (of course you can.)
Stiglitz, every time I see and hear him, he appears to be leaking self-confidence, conveying no certainty about his own thoughts about economics.
That confirms that he's a marionette. I no longer believe a word, finished with him.
Do you know what's really striking about all these discussions of debt levels? The framing of the debate. We talk abot debt levels, and by doing so we condone national debt; it's only the relative levels of debt that matter. In consumer space, debt is the process of pulling demand forward in time. Since sovereign governments produce nothing, soveriegn debt is unproductive; the purpose of sovereign debt is consumption. The Spanish ambassador in the piece said "Our debt levels are only 66% of GDP". The option of debt repayment is completely off the table. All we ever talk about is debt service. It's this same mentality that asserts that we can solve the debt crisis with loans.
What a complete clusterfuck.
Only some nations citizens are bailing out the world. The US citizens are not.
Uncle Sam broken? Depends. In real life, Uncle Sam is that guy who can go in a pub and keeps ordering. Everytime he receives the note, he tolds the bartender to charge the usual suspects, who are everyone else save himself.
That would be Uncle Sam. Nobody would call him bankrupt as this would mean everyone else is bankrupt, which is false.
Students and fraud: Interesting point. Several ways to win and game a system. You can rely on knowledge on the actual system and use this knowledge to take a dominant position.
This doesnt work for economics as it is more alike a religion than a science.
Therefore, a different deal. Winning is better achieved by forcing a way to perceive how the whole system works. Knowledge of the system is unneeded as you have now a side system you can game. This system is how people at large thinks the system is going to work. You know it when you define it. And instead of gaming the actual system that you dont know, you can game the system you design and know much better. The trick is to be credible enough to operate the substition.
Quick example: salvation. Christianty introduced salvation. Without ever considering the final point (does salvation exist? which does not matter), you can define a path to earn salvation and convince people this path is the way to earn salvation.
Uncertainty on the reality of salvation (does not matter)
Absence of knowledge on how to merit the salvation.
But an imagination to define a sensible path to salvation. Once enough people are convinced by this path, you are left with a perfectly known system to game.
Practical evidences: all the churches around the world, all pretending to know how to gain salvation, all knowing what they say to be the path to salvation.
And Churches have been thriving.
Economics are not different, various churches, Keynesianists, Austrians, Monetarists and so much more, all ignorant of the way things work in reality, all able to convince people to adopt their system of beliefs and all left with gaming a system they designed.
So why studies? To gain credibility. To learn the ropes. Students in economics should come with the right mind. Nothing of real value in their studies save they learn a charade to transmit to people and the virtual system they are going to game.
A student eager of acquiring a knowledge on a state of reality will be disappointed. A student aware of what he is going to learn and ready to accept the compromise will thrive.
Comparison of religion to government is appropriate, likely dead on.
You have your god, theBamster, that those who vote for him think he is, you have your Constitution, to be violated as easily as all ten commandments, you have your apostles spreading the word like Paulson, clinton, bush, bernanke, geithner, and you have your satanic smarm i.e. orszag, summers,greenspan,rubin,friedman,fuld,frank,thain,dodd,mozillo,o'neal,gensler, cassano, blankfein, shapiro,yellin, fink,kashkari,cohn, dudley, dugan, kagan,lippman way-over-the-top represented by a zionist cabal.
And there's even heaven, 100 to 1 leverage, that puts the world in the poor house arranged by one or two men who transfer a trillion dollars with a tap on a keyboard to the primarily jewish banksters, and then there's hell on earth for the rest of humanity, baking at 500 F, while Lord Blankfein uses their money to buy himself another $25 million dollar man-cave.
All that's missing is baby Jesus.
.
Save that I did not compare religion to government. I compared religion to economics.
And expanded on what studies in economics could bring and what set of mind could help to succeed in studying economics.
That guy is an ass anyway. Every post he/she makes is to bash Obama, or to somehow talk about the Jews.
You could have a thread about tropical thunderstorms, and he/she would still get a "fuck Obama" reference in, and some kind of derogatory comment about the Jews.