451–460 of 529 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Read third bullet point https://www.harvard.edu/research-funding/wp-content/uploads/...
Fifth bullet point contradicts it. Also, it’s not clear for me at all, what “viewpoint” means. Flat Earthers in geography departments? Or more Republicans? Or the same thing as DEI, since being black gives you different viewpoints?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is very democratic, it says so in their name!
Having the word democratic in your name is not the same as sending a letter to a university where one of the listed demands is merit-based admission.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>He can't eat with his shares. You can't eat with your brokerage account either, what is the point? >He can use them as collateral for debt. Yes, you can use your brokerage account, house, etc. as collateral for loans, this is not new or unique. >Presently, that's how he dodges taxes. What does this even mean? Loans are not taxable as you have to pay them back. >You'd close that loophole. That's not a tax... This is…
The dodgy part is what happens after someone dies. The stocks get a one-time relief from capital gains as it moves to the heir. This gives opportunity for the heirs (or the estate) to sell the stocks to pay back the loan. That is the loophole. The key here is that you need enough wealth to keep borrowing for rest of your life without touching your principle.
Correct. The OP likely knows this. Or they're totally ignorant to it. The fact that they think joe blow can execute the aforementioned strategy is vexing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Having the word democratic in your name is not the same as sending a letter to a university where one of the listed demands is merit-based admission.
The point is that we know what this administration means by 'merrit based', it means to fire anyone who dissagres, particularly women and non-whites, while hirering grosely incompetent TV-people. The only 'merrit' is loyalty.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Im afraid you'd need to be pretty liberal with your definition of rich at this point to dig us out of this hole through taxes alone.
Not really. The top 1% item roughly $50 Trillion in assets. In 2010…15 years ago…that was only $15 Trillion. If you look at the graph of the national debt and the graph of the money supply, i.e. money printing, you will find they basically overlap, correlate, track. I assume I don’t have to point out that 50-36 is 15, i.e., basically the whole growth of assets has been roughly fueled by “money printing” fraud. (Yes,…
This happens due to explicit government policy, one that has been relentlessly pushed all over the world since the 80s.
There are a couple fundamental flaws here: One is that the number one Science and Engineering powerhouse prior to WWII was Germany, not Britain. Two this totally neglects that the US received the lion's share of Scientists and Mathematicians from countries like Germany, Hungary, Poland etc with the encroachment of the Soviets and persecution of the Jewish people. While the down up approach of the US and heavy funding…
Unfortunately, the German example is quite relevant these days. We seem intent on destroying the leading system of research universities in the world... ;-(
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not if the EU creates the conditions to attract the scientific talent wanting to leave the US.
EU has a terrible track record. It's a gigantic bureaucratic papermill. They never promoted innovation, why would they start now? They'll probably talk about starting to promote innovation. They kind of have to. But it's a paradigm shift.
In a context where the comparison is China...
I say, let a thousand flowers bloom!
It's hard to really compare the two.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of research funding, and quite frankly repeating it without even basic research borders on negligence. Universities use indirect funds for maintaining facilities, the shared equipment, bulk purchases of materials, staff for things like cleaning and disposal. It is pivotal that these funds are available in the right amount or research physically cannot happen despite being "indir…
Indirect rates are negotiated. What are the incentives for the government negotiators to get the lowest possible rate? I honestly don't know; I'd like to understand more about the underlying drivers here.
And it's also why it's so insulting to just dismiss this whole process and claim rampant fraud with zero evidence. It's basically accusing thousands of people of being lazy and felonious and maliciously negligent. It's telling thousands of researchers who struggle for funding that they're apparently just morons for not getting in on the "infinite cash" we purportedly hand out like candy. It's saying universities don't need buildings or janitors and shouldn't take bulk discounts on their raw materials. Etc.
This isn't even getting into the absurd misunderstanding of economics of treating a government grant like a hamburger purchase. The US gives money to a US university which purchases US materials and pays US staff that are all taxed to give money to the US government. And their findings develop knowledge and cultivate skilled labor in the US that produce higher value exports for the US which are taxed to the US government. They aren't buying a hamburger, they're taking on what has proven to be one of the best investments in world history.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So a top TikTok influencer is more valuable than a surgeon?
Yes. They provide a scaled entertainment. You are forgetting the reach that this person has. Compared to a surgeon who's impact is more local, they might help a few patients in a week. Do you think a combat soldier is more important than a VP of Google?
If every ticktocker quit tomorrow, would society still function? Yes. Things would go on like nothing ever happened.
If every surgeon quit tomorrow, would society still function? No, people would die, they would become timid and afraid of being hurt, because minor injuries would be fatal and life changing. Not only that, we would lose centuries worth of knowledge and be forced to learn it all from scratch again from books instead of trained surgeons.
The danger in your logic is it leads to thinking like this: "ticktockers provide more value than surgeons because they can scale their reach, therefore in order to maximize total value to society, we can maximize the number of ticktickers and we don't have to worry about surgeons. We can just offset the lost value by the value brought by all the ticktockers."
That's an obvious bad idea and straw man, but people really try to go down that slippery slope in non-obvious cases. The realm of education comes to mind. "MOOCs are more valuable than universities because they have more reach, therefore in the future we will close down universities and only have MOOCs" is something I've heard seriously proposed before.