|
|
On October 31 2012 14:57 Souma wrote:
And textbook companies are evil, christ. In Japan I'm not even sure I spent a fifth of what I usually pay here for textbooks.
Yes, I work part time at a community college bookstore and it's ridiculous. They do everything in their power to quash used book markets. There's a lot of 200+ dollar textbooks that are essentially disposable one-use only because of "added content" with scratch-off access codes or things like that. The textbook reps lobby the profs pretty hard to get them to buy their books - I don't really know how they convince them, though, the profs must not give a shit about how expensive that stuff is. There's no reason you need to release a new algebra textbook, render all the old ones useless, and make everybody buy new hardbacks. Algebra didn't change. It's disgusting.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 31 2012 15:01 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2012 14:57 Souma wrote:
And textbook companies are evil, christ. In Japan I'm not even sure I spent a fifth of what I usually pay here for textbooks. Yes, I work part time at a community college bookstore and it's ridiculous. They do everything in their power to quash used book markets. There's a lot of 200+ dollar textbooks that are essentially disposable one-use only because of "added content" with scratch-off access codes or things like that. The textbook reps lobby the profs pretty hard to get them to buy their books - I don't really know how they convince them, though, the profs must not give a shit about how expensive that stuff is. There's no reason you need to release a new algebra textbook, render all the old ones useless, and make everybody buy new hardbacks. Algebra didn't change. It's disgusting.
Luckily for me I've stumbled upon some professors who do care and either just assign things to read online or find the cheapest stuff available that will do the job. I curse the professors who make me pay a couple hundred for a textbook.
|
In some situations the text comes with access codes to tests that are part of your final assessment.
So if you don't want to spend $190 on a text book, there goes 10% of your grade.
|
On October 31 2012 14:58 sam!zdat wrote:
Do you feel that the enforcement regime does a pretty good job of limiting corporations from doing political spending, or are there sneaky ways around it? How do you decide what constitues political advocacy?
Essentially what corporations do is that the CEO or whatever takes his own money,and donates it under other people's names. If someone hasn't maxed out their spending cap for the year, they get $1100 and can spend it on a party. The reason people do it is because there's ~$600 in tax credits for the individual. It's abusable, but takes a gargantuan amount of work to donate even $50k compared to donating that in the USA.
Quick google search:
“Political Advertising” is defined as “advertising” appearing at any time regarding a political figure, a political party, a political or government policy or issue, or an electoral candidate"
I can't find the limitations on ad buys or whatever but Canadians in general take truth in advertising far more seriously than I think the americans do. There's also far fewer direct attack ads against candidates/parties since they're perceived far more negatively (There's also CBC, a government run news organization which is pretty much committed to be non-partisan) There's a few instances of bias
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Broadcasting_Corporation#Controversies
But nothing like the likes of fox and the liberal equivalents.
On another note,
http://www.nationaljournal.com/hotline/ad-spending-in-presidential-battleground-states-20120620
The spending in Ohio alone trumps the election spending across canada by all parties and has 1/3rd the population.
|
On October 31 2012 14:54 Lmui wrote:Political spending in Canada is something I think is pretty fair compared to the states. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_political_financing_in_CanadaThere is money that comes directly from the federal government, a per-vote subsidy (For every vote you receive in an election, you get some taxpayer money). This was also coupled with the introduction of spending limits. The maximum any individual can contribute is $1,100 to the party and another $1100 to their representative. (There are loopholes but they aren't all too serious compared to what can be done by individuals in the states. Corporations also have no voice. There are cases where political spending from a large number of individuals from the same company/group have used the contribution limit to a single candidate but these (I feel) pale in comparison to the massive amount of money in US politics.
Sounds a little similar to British political spending, and I wonder if they influenced one another,
We have three major political parties. By law they have to have a certain amount of air time on the national TV networks, equal to each other. They can do what they will with this time, they cannot purchase more, and it is advertised ahead of time. People can tune in or ignore it as they wish.
Donations are severely restricted, because we're of the opinion that if a person can give enough money to a man he will buy that man. We limit the amounts of money from donors to both politicians and parties, since it is in effect bribery. Politicians and parties should be aiming at doing what is best for the state and the citizens, not for whoever can pay them the most money.
Spending on campaigns is a big one. The parties have a certain amount they are allowed to spend in each county in the UK, dictated by the population of the county. I forget how much it is per head, but it's a small amount, intentionally, to make sure the rampant increases in spending that is evident in US elections doesn't happen. Part of this may be a reflection of having irregular elections - Prime Ministers tend to stay in power until they are unpopular in their party, and a snap election can be called at any time - this means if David Cameron thought he would win, he could call for an election next month and the Brits would all march (well, just over half of them would march...) to the voting stations. Insanity, I know, since we miss out on politicians spending most of their time in charge campaigning for the next election. How does anyone get anything done in this country?
I am curious, though. The amount of money spent in elections is mind-boggling and only on the increase. That's a huge amount of money spent on air-time, billboards, tv ads, newspaper ads, whatever. Would the Us economy suffer if campaign financing and lobbying was banned or tightly controlled?
|
Interesting, thanks Lmui. I guess if you just assume people will abuse the system but make the transaction costs high enough to limit the abuse, that's kinda like actually having control over your own political process...
On October 31 2012 15:21 Sanctimonius wrote:
I am curious, though. The amount of money spent in elections is mind-boggling and only on the increase. That's a huge amount of money spent on air-time, billboards, tv ads, newspaper ads, whatever. Would the Us economy suffer if campaign financing and lobbying was banned or tightly controlled?
I think this is a pretty important thing, actually, but then people tell me not to be such a paranoid leftist so idk
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 31 2012 15:21 Sanctimonius wrote:
I am curious, though. The amount of money spent in elections is mind-boggling and only on the increase. That's a huge amount of money spent on air-time, billboards, tv ads, newspaper ads, whatever. Would the Us economy suffer if campaign financing and lobbying was banned or tightly controlled?
Doubtful. With strict regulation on the influence of money in politics, the economy would fare better off in the long run. A lot less cronyism and bs.
|
On October 31 2012 14:52 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2012 14:45 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 31 2012 13:27 aksfjh wrote:On October 31 2012 13:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 31 2012 12:34 aksfjh wrote:On October 31 2012 12:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 31 2012 12:10 aksfjh wrote:On October 31 2012 11:58 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 31 2012 11:54 aksfjh wrote:On October 31 2012 11:50 jdseemoreglass wrote:
No, the most vapid posts are one's that attack a post without offering a single argument or constructive criticism in response. There's nothing in there one can respond to, hence the use of the word "vapid." There is a notion that you paint across multiple posts that bothers me. What makes government spending necessarily inefficient (or less efficient) than consumer or business spending? What makes it less efficient is the absence of both the price mechanism and the profit incentive. How do neither of those exist? We don't live in a world where government doesn't have to pay for goods or services at market competitive prices, and their capital resources, while large, are budgeted tightly, and are limited in turn. Profit incentive is replaced by the incentive to get reelected, which should largely be judged by how effectively the people are governed, which includes the services and goods government provides. That's often incorrect. The government doesn't price, say, K-12 education at a market rate and then tax people based on that market rate. The government basically takes their cost (which may or may not be reasonable) and passes it onto the taxpayer. Which is what businesses do when they provide a product or service. They offer it at cost, which may or may not be reasonable, and then expect to profit as well. Consumers are then supposed to weigh the costs and benefits of the product/service and determine if it is reasonable for them. The market only serves as an empty term to pin efficiency to as well. There is no "market price," only the price people are willing to pay for a good or service. The closest thing you have to the idealized notion of a "market" is the reference point people have of different prices being offered for differing quality of the same product/service. No, generally businesses don't simply do cost plus pricing. The cost of comparable goods and services play a huge role in determining pricing. For example, GM couldn't simply pass its high production costs onto the consumer. If it could it never would have need to seek bankruptcy protection. The reason it couldn't pass its cost onto the consumer was that competitors could offer comparable cars at a lower price and still turn a profit - because they had more efficient cost structures. The same competitive pressure doesn't exist in public education and so there is no check on inefficient spending. Competing cost of goods play a different role depending on the industry involved. Sometimes that role is huge, and people hunt for the lowest price available. Other times, the role is almost nonexistent, where people want the job done (right) and weigh the price against their available finances. As for education, the pressure exists in another way. People are always clamoring for more government spending and/or lower taxes, so education is often in competition with other departments for a limited pool of resources. There are a ton of checks on inefficient spending, and budgets are often strictly controlled and rigid in implementation. After all, if the education system is 5% under budget, that's a lot of money that can go to roads/transportation, parks, health, public safety, or a future tax break. Your real gripe seems to be that schools don't go "bankrupt" enough, but when they do, it greatly impacts the lives of the students involved. Instead of getting a poor education, they're stuck with no education. the body of knowledge as to what constitutes efficient vs inefficient spending is extremely poor. I think this is the core of the problem, really. We don't really have a good theory as to what our school system is supposed to do, exactly. Everybody knows standardized tests are the total bullshit, but how else do you manage things at this kind of scale? The effect of large scale educational systems is to substitute training for education (because the former is easier to quantify - although there are cultural reasons for this as well, and the bourgeoisie doesn't care because their children get educated in private schools and they don't care about education for proles, only training). I rather agree that we need to open up the school system to competing paradigms and let parents decide, but you need to do this in such a way that you aren't only benefitting already privileged populations with this (I feel like this happens more often than not with charter schools). Either way, though, I think we are going to need to spend more money on education. I think we need more money AND more efficient spending. The way that textbook companies do business is also a problem and presents unnecessary burden for students, but that may be more of a problem for community colleges than high schools.
I'd like some kind of voucher system. I'm not sure what would work best, but there are a few different kinds in Europe that the US could model after. I hear Sweden's is pretty good.
Yeah textbooks are BS. The worst are the tax accounting books. The tax code changes every year so used books become obsolete and worthless every year 
|
In BC they're starting to roll this out:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2012/10/16/bc-online-textbooks.html
Free textbooks for top 40 most popular courses available online.
I can't find which books are going to be free but I'd assume things like math at the 100 to 300 level (basic differential/integral calculus has not changed in 200+ years, neither have statistics, fourier transforms, number theory, set theory etc). Lower level english (Hasn't and not likely to change), Economics 100/101 (supply and demand has been in effect for thousands of years).
It'd be nice to see something like this rolled out across canada + USA to drive cost down and quality up but with the money/profits from releasing new editions of textbooks I doubt this will make it south of the border any time soon.
|
Well, I'm not sure you're right about lower level english not changing, but I'm all in favor of online textbooks. Bring on the information age, minions!
|
i had a friend who had a professor who said "i don't care what version of the book you get, the history of the roman empire hasnt changed much in the last 1500 years."
best. professor. ever.
|
ah, but then he lies to you
|
On October 31 2012 15:53 ticklishmusic wrote:
i had a friend who had a professor who said "i don't care what version of the book you get, the history of the roman empire hasnt changed much in the last 1500 years."
best. professor. ever.
Bwahaha :D Just confirms History always is the best degree. All my professors chose books that were available cheap, whereas Psych, despite flat-out asking the professor if they'd use it, we only opened it to answer some crappy tests at the end of each chapter. New editions every year, over 100 pounds per copy, no reselling possible...such bullshit.
|
Canada11607 Posts
Yeah, thanks for laying it out, Lmui, on Canadian political finance law. That's definitely the context I'm coming from when I see the appalling amount of money being spent by all sides and with little to no restrictions on donors whether persons, corporations, or unions.
|
On October 31 2012 14:45 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2012 13:27 aksfjh wrote:On October 31 2012 13:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 31 2012 12:34 aksfjh wrote:On October 31 2012 12:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 31 2012 12:10 aksfjh wrote:On October 31 2012 11:58 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 31 2012 11:54 aksfjh wrote:On October 31 2012 11:50 jdseemoreglass wrote:
No, the most vapid posts are one's that attack a post without offering a single argument or constructive criticism in response. There's nothing in there one can respond to, hence the use of the word "vapid." There is a notion that you paint across multiple posts that bothers me. What makes government spending necessarily inefficient (or less efficient) than consumer or business spending? What makes it less efficient is the absence of both the price mechanism and the profit incentive. How do neither of those exist? We don't live in a world where government doesn't have to pay for goods or services at market competitive prices, and their capital resources, while large, are budgeted tightly, and are limited in turn. Profit incentive is replaced by the incentive to get reelected, which should largely be judged by how effectively the people are governed, which includes the services and goods government provides. That's often incorrect. The government doesn't price, say, K-12 education at a market rate and then tax people based on that market rate. The government basically takes their cost (which may or may not be reasonable) and passes it onto the taxpayer. Which is what businesses do when they provide a product or service. They offer it at cost, which may or may not be reasonable, and then expect to profit as well. Consumers are then supposed to weigh the costs and benefits of the product/service and determine if it is reasonable for them. The market only serves as an empty term to pin efficiency to as well. There is no "market price," only the price people are willing to pay for a good or service. The closest thing you have to the idealized notion of a "market" is the reference point people have of different prices being offered for differing quality of the same product/service. No, generally businesses don't simply do cost plus pricing. The cost of comparable goods and services play a huge role in determining pricing. For example, GM couldn't simply pass its high production costs onto the consumer. If it could it never would have need to seek bankruptcy protection. The reason it couldn't pass its cost onto the consumer was that competitors could offer comparable cars at a lower price and still turn a profit - because they had more efficient cost structures. The same competitive pressure doesn't exist in public education and so there is no check on inefficient spending. Competing cost of goods play a different role depending on the industry involved. Sometimes that role is huge, and people hunt for the lowest price available. Other times, the role is almost nonexistent, where people want the job done (right) and weigh the price against their available finances. As for education, the pressure exists in another way. People are always clamoring for more government spending and/or lower taxes, so education is often in competition with other departments for a limited pool of resources. There are a ton of checks on inefficient spending, and budgets are often strictly controlled and rigid in implementation. After all, if the education system is 5% under budget, that's a lot of money that can go to roads/transportation, parks, health, public safety, or a future tax break. Your real gripe seems to be that schools don't go "bankrupt" enough, but when they do, it greatly impacts the lives of the students involved. Instead of getting a poor education, they're stuck with no education. Yeah, I don't want schools to go "bankrupt" ... whatever that means. But back on topic... Strictly controlled budgets are not a sufficient check on inefficient spending in the case of education because the body of knowledge as to what constitutes efficient vs inefficient spending is extremely poor. You simply do not have the level of internal and external numerical analysis over government budgets as you do with private businesses. It just doesn't exist. The incentives you mention aren't that great either. Getting the education system 5% under budget opens you up to attack for 'cutting education spending' while benefiting the next person in office.
Why not? What differentiates private investment from public investment at this point?
|
I admit it is always hard for me to image Romney getting more than 40% of the national vote (or even 20%) but I think this shows the key big swing states are Obama's"
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57542715/poll-obama-holds-small-ohio-edge-fla-va-tight/?tag=categoryDoorLead;catDoorHero
Mr. Obama now leads Romney 50 percent to 45 percent among likely voters in Ohio - exactly where the race stood on Oct. 22. His lead in Florida, however, has shrunk from nine points in September to just one point in the new survey, which shows Mr. Obama with 48 percent support and Romney with 47 percent. The president's lead in Virginia has shrunk from five points in early October to two points in the new survey, which shows him with a 49 percent to 47 percent advantage.
I have a feeling there's still a chance for North Carolina too and the election will be all but over before the polls even close in Ohio.
|
On October 31 2012 15:17 ControlMonkey wrote:
In some situations the text comes with access codes to tests that are part of your final assessment.
So if you don't want to spend $190 on a text book, there goes 10% of your grade.
This is what happens with for profit education. The government should shut them down.
|
On October 31 2012 15:21 Sanctimonius wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2012 14:54 Lmui wrote:Political spending in Canada is something I think is pretty fair compared to the states. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_political_financing_in_CanadaThere is money that comes directly from the federal government, a per-vote subsidy (For every vote you receive in an election, you get some taxpayer money). This was also coupled with the introduction of spending limits. The maximum any individual can contribute is $1,100 to the party and another $1100 to their representative. (There are loopholes but they aren't all too serious compared to what can be done by individuals in the states. Corporations also have no voice. There are cases where political spending from a large number of individuals from the same company/group have used the contribution limit to a single candidate but these (I feel) pale in comparison to the massive amount of money in US politics. Sounds a little similar to British political spending, and I wonder if they influenced one another, We have three major political parties. By law they have to have a certain amount of air time on the national TV networks, equal to each other. They can do what they will with this time, they cannot purchase more, and it is advertised ahead of time. People can tune in or ignore it as they wish.
There should be something like this where every single channel in the United States has like an hour for politics and either you turn off the TV or you hear something in depth about the serious issues. And you do this on different days of the week for perhaps three months before the election.
If people better understood how Bush wrecked the economy instead of hearing all of Romney's bought ads about 8% unemployment that don't mention it was 10% last year we could have saved a billion dollars on this campaign.
|
On October 31 2012 15:21 Sanctimonius wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2012 14:54 Lmui wrote:Political spending in Canada is something I think is pretty fair compared to the states. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_political_financing_in_CanadaThere is money that comes directly from the federal government, a per-vote subsidy (For every vote you receive in an election, you get some taxpayer money). This was also coupled with the introduction of spending limits. The maximum any individual can contribute is $1,100 to the party and another $1100 to their representative. (There are loopholes but they aren't all too serious compared to what can be done by individuals in the states. Corporations also have no voice. There are cases where political spending from a large number of individuals from the same company/group have used the contribution limit to a single candidate but these (I feel) pale in comparison to the massive amount of money in US politics. Sounds a little similar to British political spending, and I wonder if they influenced one another, We have three major political parties. By law they have to have a certain amount of air time on the national TV networks, equal to each other. They can do what they will with this time, they cannot purchase more, and it is advertised ahead of time. People can tune in or ignore it as they wish. Donations are severely restricted, because we're of the opinion that if a person can give enough money to a man he will buy that man. We limit the amounts of money from donors to both politicians and parties, since it is in effect bribery. Politicians and parties should be aiming at doing what is best for the state and the citizens, not for whoever can pay them the most money. Spending on campaigns is a big one. The parties have a certain amount they are allowed to spend in each county in the UK, dictated by the population of the county. I forget how much it is per head, but it's a small amount, intentionally, to make sure the rampant increases in spending that is evident in US elections doesn't happen. Part of this may be a reflection of having irregular elections - Prime Ministers tend to stay in power until they are unpopular in their party, and a snap election can be called at any time - this means if David Cameron thought he would win, he could call for an election next month and the Brits would all march (well, just over half of them would march...) to the voting stations. Insanity, I know, since we miss out on politicians spending most of their time in charge campaigning for the next election. How does anyone get anything done in this country? I am curious, though. The amount of money spent in elections is mind-boggling and only on the increase. That's a huge amount of money spent on air-time, billboards, tv ads, newspaper ads, whatever. Would the Us economy suffer if campaign financing and lobbying was banned or tightly controlled?
Same in France, public money per votes and limited gifts to 6900€ per election, and only for physical persons. Moral persons can't give any money neither services/goods etc..
Many candidates and parties got caught by the police for hidden gifts in cash, it's like corruption in my country.
In addition, all parties, big or small, have the same limited time on TV to show their ideas and programs.
The US presidential election looks anti democratic here, it's something impossible to imagine in France (or in Europe).
Another US' specificity 
|
On October 31 2012 22:38 nevermindthebollocks wrote:I admit it is always hard for me to image Romney getting more than 40% of the national vote (or even 20%) but I think this shows the key big swing states are Obama's" http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57542715/poll-obama-holds-small-ohio-edge-fla-va-tight/?tag=categoryDoorLead;catDoorHeroMr. Obama now leads Romney 50 percent to 45 percent among likely voters in Ohio - exactly where the race stood on Oct. 22. His lead in Florida, however, has shrunk from nine points in September to just one point in the new survey, which shows Mr. Obama with 48 percent support and Romney with 47 percent. The president's lead in Virginia has shrunk from five points in early October to two points in the new survey, which shows him with a 49 percent to 47 percent advantage. I have a feeling there's still a chance for North Carolina too and the election will be all but over before the polls even close in Ohio.
Haha Ohio. I played a dota2 games where the an enemy from Ohio had nick name President Rommey, and keep telling us to vote for him, so we trolled him. Everytime we have a clutched play, big play, running back with 10hp, we said "Thank god for Obamacare"
That was fun.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
