Chinese Companies Are Buying Up Cash-Strapped US Colleges (bloomberg.com) 206
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Bloomberg: Chinese companies are taking advantage of America's financially strapped higher-education system to buy schools, and the latest deal for a classical music conservatory in Princeton, New Jersey, is striking chords of dissonance on campus. Beijing Kaiwen Education Technology Co. agreed in February to pay $40 million for Westminster Choir College, an affiliate of Rider University that trains students for careers as singers, conductors and music teachers. The announcement came just weeks after the government-controlled Chinese company changed its name from Jiangsu Zhongtai Bridge Steel Structure Co. The pending purchase rankles some Westminster faculty and alumni, who question what a longtime maker of steel spans knows about running an elite school whose choirs sang with maestros Leonard Bernstein, Arturo Toscanini and Seiji Ozawa. Alumni are among those suing in New York federal court to block the sale, saying it violates Westminster's 1991 merger agreement with Rider and will trigger the choir college's demise.
At least someone... (Score:5, Funny)
At least someone is investing in education.
Re: At least someone... (Score:1)
They probably ran out of bridges to sell.
Re: (Score:1)
I bet the Chinese company is going to have the most awesome, most non-bogus corporate songs ever. There will be only one word to describe them: Excellent!
Re: (Score:2)
At least someone is investing in education.
It can only be done in this direction; a Chinese company buying US schools. Back home in China foreign companies aren't allowed to buy a controlling interest (50%+) in anything.
Re:At least someone... (Score:5, Insightful)
At least someone is investing in education.
Uh, what do you call a trillion or two in student debt?
A shitload of free money in interest payments to banks and lenders.
Re: (Score:3)
A shitload of free money in interest payments to banks and lenders.
Interest isn't free money, interest is what time costs.
Re: (Score:1)
Uh, what do you call a trillion or two in student debt?
Money wasted on spring breaks in Cancun.
So, (Score:3)
This makes sense (Score:5, Insightful)
So many of the students at US colleges are already Chinese, so buying some schools out would be a logical next step.
But wouldn't it be wondrously ironic if a Chinese buyout is what it takes for our liberal arts schools to return to their traditional role of passing on the history and culture of Western civilization? It would be acceptable to teach the works of dead white men once more.
Colleges are also going to want to ask themselves: in this era of blisteringly high tuitions, why are so many of them "cash-strapped?"
Re: (Score:2)
High tuition (Score:5, Insightful)
Colleges are also going to want to ask themselves: in this era of blisteringly high tuitions, why are so many of them "cash-strapped?"
The tuition is high because state funding has dried up substantially and because there is something of a bidding war for talent between universities. A research professor can bring in a LOT of revenue to the university but they don't come cheap. Universities make a lot of money off of research patents courtesy of the Bayh-Dole Act [wikipedia.org]. Plus for a lot of schools we have one of the major parties that tends to oppose using any tax dollars to educate people - especially when the people hired with that money tend not to vote for for them.
Re: High tuition (Score:4, Interesting)
The root issue is that colleges and universities are offering amenities and classes that colleges and universities never did before.
Campuses are now littered with 'activity' centers to entertain and amuse students, and an ever-increasing percentage of students enter college with deficient math or reading skills. Why are colleges and universities taking in students that can't read or write at a 12th grade level?
How can a college defend charging $500 or more per credit hour to sit in a room with 20-100 other students?
Re: (Score:3)
40 years ago most students at the university I went to had to take remedial English classes. Others needed to take remedial math classes. And that university only even considered admitting students from the upper quarter of the grade profile (normalized via the SAT tests, of course).
So don't think it's a new problem.
OTOH, I do admit that I usually found the lectures to be less educational than the section meetings. If all you do is sit in the lectures, then you are either attending an inferior school, or
Re: (Score:2)
Funding (Score:4, Insightful)
Why did state funding dry up? Because the federal government came in to save the day.
What country are you living in? That's certainly not the case in the US. State schools are supported by state funding and that funding has been falling. Federal funding has not kept up so tuition has had to rise to at least partially offset the falling state support. State funding has dried up because certain members of the populace don't like taxes even when those taxes actually benefit them.
Why does education need to be funded at the federal level?
Because education is a public good [wikipedia.org] that benefits us all. We live in a single country and can cross borders freely so claiming education funding and support should be restricted to the state/local level is idiotic.
Seems like education pre1980 wasn't as bad as it is now and post1980 has been characterized by disregard to meritocracy, title 9, increasing costs, and lower quality.
You might want to take off your rose colored glasses. I got much of my education pre-1980 and so I think your argument is a bogus strawman.
Re:Funding (Score:4, Insightful)
Because education is a public good [wikipedia.org] that benefits us all. We live in a single country and can cross borders freely so claiming education funding and support should be restricted to the state/local level is idiotic.
That doesn't address the question of how education should be funded and managed. The Department of Education only started in 1980 so the majority of history for the US had education controlled at the State level with varying degrees of success. During that time States were able to to increase attendance, literacy, and was intended to foster creativity without the aide of the federal government. We were a single country that could cross borders freely then so your complete disregard to state/local control is baseless.
Yes, education is a public good but that does not mean that the federal government be involved with it or that the federal government is better than the states.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, I think that even some of the large states were doing a poor job. (I'm certain that some of the small states were.)
FWIW, the University of California started declining when Clark Kerr ("The Uses of a University") ran the place. He lead the way towards turning the University into a trade school, and trying to make the various departments "profit centers", though the profit he was more interested in was political rather than economic (and thus the quotes). It has continued the decline under his s
Re: (Score:3)
education funding and support should be restricted to the state/local level is idiotic
No, what would be idiotic is to live in a country that has a constitution, and then say that constitution is idiotic. Please read it. If you don't like what you read, there are 200+ other countries in the world you can move to that have a different set of rules and laws. Stop trying to break mine.
Re: (Score:3)
Sorry, but large institutions don't relate well to individuals. Ever. Small institutions sometimes do. Excellence in education requires relating to the students as individuals.
The problem is that large and expensive tools require a large institution to support them. You can't study X-Ray diffraction in nano-crystilline alloys without a lot of rather expensive tools. But you wouldn't do that until you were a grad student anyway.
I suspect the entire design of the college system needs to be revamped, with
Re: (Score:2)
I think we are on the same page, but, just to be clear, I challenge you to produce the sections of the US Constitution that gives it the right to meddle/regulate/tax for education at all. The constitution outlines the things that each branch of the federal government MAY do. It SHOULD not do anything that isn't listed. That's the entire premise of the constitution. Nowhere in there does it say may tax from the people and distribute funds to some higher education facilities as they see fit.
And before so
Re: (Score:2)
That completely fails to explain (a) the actual meaning of the phrase "general welfare" and (b) why the Federal government taxes and spends on things that it's not empowered to make laws about. Federal jurisdiction has been challenged in the courts before, and the Supreme Court has normally been willing to limit Federal power (exceptions being the interstate commerce clause being distorted out of meaning).
Digging into Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] on the taxing and spending clause, it appears that the more expansive plain
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, "General Welfare" *doesn't* have a clear meaning, and people are always disagreeing about exactly what it means. Originally it didn't even apply to interstate roads.
That said, I feel the main problem with the constitution is that it's been interpreted by lawyers to mean that they can do whatever the guy paying them wants to do. Sometimes the changes in meaning were necessary, but that should have been done by amendment rather than by lying about what the words meant. Unfortunately, the pro
Re: (Score:2)
Except that this isn't a case of lying about what the words mean. This is a case of taking the words of the Constitution and finding a clear meaning in them. It may not be the only meaning, but interpreting it my way is not any sort of distortion of meaning. This is in contrast to a ruling that governing commerce among the several States applies to a farmer doing stuff on his own land for his own consumption, which does seem to me to be a really big stretch. It's also very unclear to me how the Federal
Re: (Score:2)
The constitution gives Congress authority to spend on the general welfare, so it can provide funding for education.
(Last time I brought this up, somebody claimed that "general welfare" didn't mean what it clearly does. If you're going to pull that on me again, come up with some support for your claims.)
Re: (Score:2)
Already did. Read below.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:This makes sense (Score:5, Interesting)
If you think China is Marxist communist, then you don't understand either. Rhetoric isn't reality.
OTOH, Confucianism also doesn't have anything to do with communism (of any sort!) which makes the picture in your link quite peculiar.
That said, I'm sure they will use their access to push beliefs favorable to them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, speaking for state funded, although associated might be a better adjective, universities and colleges, idiot legislators have been cutting their funding for years. They trot out the usual excuses but regardless, it results in higher tuition for their own seed corn. The legislators don't see it that way, if they can get through their next election, they are happy. They don't give a damn about anyone else but themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why wouldn't they instead teach the history and culture of Eastern civilization, dead Chinese men instead of dead white ones? I will grant this is still an improvement over teaching nothing but hatred of white people.
That's what Chinese universities are for. A wealthy society sends its best young people overseas to gain understanding of new cultures so they can improve trade relations.
My big takeaway after having lived in Asia is that the main advantage they have over so many other parts of the world is long-term thinking. Organizations public nd private plan for a generation from now. Our public agencies can't think beyond the next election and our corporations can't plan past the next quarter.
Re: (Score:1)
Are you a dead white man?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
And to think I share a demographic with this worm. Man the fuck up and stop being such a whiny little bitch.
Spotted the Antifa thug!
Re: (Score:2)
Because historically every society that became prosperous enough to host major universities used its liberal arts schools to transmit the values of its own culture, with whatever parts of ancient cultures that interested them. Only in the radical-infested parts of the US and Europe has it become fashionable for liberal arts schools to actively denigrate their own cultures.
Re: (Score:2)
I am afraid the culprit has a lot to do with my first statement. Larger state colleges offer a lot of perks as well as robust athletic programs and are typically offset by government subsidies. Meanwhile smaller colleges are forced to raise tuition to make ends meet which is counter productive to the problem.
Maybe the choir college needs a robust football program.
The end zone celebrations would be fantastic.
Cash-strapped? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
How does a school which charges $40,000/yr in tuition [rider.edu] end up cash-strapped?
Now there's the $64,000 question.
(Actually it's more like the $64 million dollar question when adjusted for 2018 tuition rates.)
Re: (Score:3)
I can just imagine a laundry list of reasons, topped with the catch-all of "poor management".
You probably need a scoring system to derive a cash-strap score. Add 1 for being in a large urban area with increased operating costs for labor and supplies. Add 1 for leadership dominated by academics from non-management fields. Add 2 for ill-advised expansion plans (new buildings/facilities, etc) predicated on rising tuition *and* enrollment. Add 2 for financial planning which does not properly account for tui
Re: (Score:3)
Tuition typically only covers 20-30% of a school's income. The rest comes from states, federal, grants, beneficiaries and returns on investment of their endowment.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Okay: $40k/y, avg. 30 students per class = $1.2M/y. Each class requires pretty much one FTE faculty at $100-150k/y. Most faculty have an administrative staff, deans, provosts etc. We've probably eaten half your class income in wages for people directly related to the faculty and a class and we haven't even put down a building or paved a road, gotten your IT or classroom infrastructure, gotten any research done, no TA, RA or any other lab assistant, we haven't paid scholarships etc
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
1 FTE - the students have to be in front of at least 1 professor for at least 6-8 hours per day for teaching. A single faculty may teach only one class per weekday, but there are likely 6-8 professors per day involved in a students' class.
I don't understand the reason for choir college either, but the structures in colleges are pretty much the same regarding of discipline, the overhead gets worse for liberal arts colleges as half the faculty and students are protesting something.
Education is expensive. (Score:3)
Are you kidding? Have you walked through a university campus and looked around? All those huge, beautiful, buildings aren't going to cover themselves with ivy.
Well, actually, they are, but I think where you see where I am going with this.
Constructing a building costs millions. It is even more expensive when you make it look like some thing that you expect to see on a college campus. You have to build a lot of the
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Blame Trump (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
I think that more people are becoming aware of how its almost essentially impossible to discharge student loan debt and that even if you're getting a discount, paying back $80,000 in loans when you have a degree that isn't going to guarantee an ability to pay that back anytime soon is a losing proposition.
It's an education; they shouldn't have used a loan to pay for a useless degree.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Most private universities also provide need based financial aid to residents
Blame campus violence (Score:2, Informative)
Do you think that foreign audiences are completely ignorant of the leftist activism that is turning campus spaces into riot scenes? That they do not see the viral videos, and that they have no access to news sources?
There is nothing to keep them from associating all American universities as hotbeds of political driven disorderly conduct where even freedom of speech is under constant assault. Why would they want to spend a fortune and risk wasting their kid's chance at higher education.
I'll blame the idio
What could possibly go wrong... (Score:1)
The good news is that the institutions being bought are small ones generally that don't matter... colleges that can burn out and vanish without even being noticed.
Ideal end game with this sort of thing is that the Chinese get what the Japanese got when they pulled the same move in the 1980s... Ash. Japanese bought a lot of things... paid top dollar for damaged assets... and when time told on the wisdom of the investments... they lost their shirts.
I bare no hostility to the Chinese, but just like they don't
Re:What could possibly go wrong... (Score:5, Interesting)
The prosperity of US is built partly on the fact that its considered a safe haven for investments. Doesnt matter if you are a corrupt Chinese bureacrat, a Nigerian scamster, a Rwandan genocidal warlord, a Korean monopolist Chaebol kingpin, a south American drug kingpin, a corrupt Indian politician, an inbred European ex Royal with ill gotten Nazi loot; The US welcomes all investments.
The US does not grab your property for personal crimes. It only confiscates property belonging to nation states it has disagreements with.
So once you have made your money and would like to go clean you invest it in USA and retire to the US.
This reputation is hard won and many a constituional and moral principle has been sacrificed for this key pillar of prosperity.
You dont want to endanger it just to feel some Schadenfreude over the Chinese losing money on their investments.
Rather you should keep rooting for a booming US economy with constant inflow of foreign money. A booming economy lifts all boats.
Re: What could possibly go wrong... (Score:2)
retire to the US
All totally true, except most don't want to retire here. A neat thing about US investment compared to other countries is that it can be done with very little local presence. You don't need to physically come here every month or three to protect your investment from others. Also, pretty much every country graciously accepts the US dollar and many times won't even charge you much in taxes or exchange fees.
So you can live where ever you want and pull just enough low tax/fee income for your monthly expenses f
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Pfft. That's for poor people who can't fight back.
If you're the sort of rich person who has "investments" and can afford lawyers, you'll probably be fine.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The US does not grab your property for personal crimes. It only confiscates property belonging to nation states it has disagreements with.
So once you have made your money and would like to go clean you invest it in USA and retire to the US.
This reputation is hard won and many a constituional and moral principle has been sacrificed for this key pillar of prosperity.
You dont want to endanger it just to feel some Schadenfreude over the Chinese losing money on their investments.
Rather you should keep rooting for a booming US economy with constant inflow of foreign money. A booming economy lifts all boats.
I generally agree this is good. If you're in Mexico and your family is sending you money every month, that is good both for you, and for Mexico in general. If your company is on the ropes and an overseas company buys it when no domestic firm would, that is good too. But in other cases it is not good.
Property prices in several cities are skyrocketing in part due to foreign buyers who neither rent nor reside in them. This makes housing less affordable to people who would actually live there.
College
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not talking about doing anything. I'm talking about bad investments not paying out.
A lot of small universities are going broke. The big ones are doing very well but the marginal ones are dying left right and center. They're bad investments.
So I'm not cheating the chinese. I'm not doing anything. Bad investments are bad.
As I said, the Japanese did the same thing in the 1980s. They went crazy with their money and made a lot of really bad investments. When their money ran out, Japan went into a decades lon
Re: (Score:2)
You must be kidding. The US govt now steals more via civil asset forfeiture than is stolen via ordinary burglary. https://www.armstrongeconomics... [armstrongeconomics.com]
Re:What could possibly go wrong... (Score:4, Insightful)
Good fences make good neighbors.
Now that's an ironic statement when talking about a country fighting for sanctuary cities and utterly defiant on applying that logic to Mexico...
Re: (Score:2)
That matter is obviously controversial within the US. Some desire one outcome whilst others desire another. We'll see how it works out. Push as you can see is coming to shove.
Re: (Score:2)
If you read the Robert Frost poem that feature that line, you won't find it exactly ironic, as much as an interesting literary reference.
The poem is called, IIRC, "Mending Wall". And it's about a disagreement about precisely that point.
"Something there is that doesn't love a wall..."
Re: (Score:2)
Your pathetic hate boner for me is made all the more poignant by your terror at being identified as you cower behind your AC tag.
I'm quite certain you post under a known name on this forum. But when it comes to e-stalking and trolling you hide behind your AC tag.
What do you believe? hmm?
See, what you're doing is using the fact that I use a trackable name to establish a record on me. But what of you?
See, I could do the same thing, post under the AC tag as well... and then who could you pathetically stalk?
You
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
From the US lab to China. The faculty is now the intellectual property of China. So are all their projects and results.
The campus goes full Communist.
Re: (Score:2)
Most of the research is happening at the big universities which china can't buy. I fair number of them are not even private entities.
China isn't buying a UC school, MIT, or any of the Ivy Leagues...
The underlying problem with china is integrity. They don't honor patents. Not just US patents but any patents. They don't honor their own patents. Until they start honoring patents in practice and fact I don't think Chinese technological supremacy is a serious concern.
Re: (Score:2)
1. I agree you don't have to honor patents to get the tech that is patented.
2. I agree that not honoring patents does offer short term benefits. I think there are long term problems with not honoring patents that suppress investment in new technology because you won't own things you invested to create. Instead, you invest and your competitors profit because they get the fruits of your investment without any of the work to develop it.
3. As to it not being china's problem, theft isn't a problem if you don't p
Gotta sell them something (Score:3)
When the world was on the gold standard, running a trade deficit was a big deal. If the deficit was not addressed quickly, gold reserves would run down, and the country could quickly find itself in a position where it did not have enough hard currency to buy the things it needed. Regular folk on the street could easily see the impact of not producing enough goods to sell overseas as you needed/wanted to import. Countries had industrial policies. Politicians lost power on account of not managing the trade deficit.
When the US ended the gold standard (because it ceased generating trade surpluses) and currencies floated, it gave politicians a number of new tools to manage (fudge) trade deficits. The first was that countries like the USA, which held global reserve status, could inflate away the value of their currencies and hence any debts owned in those currencies. You could just give a foreign country a bunch of dollar bills, then print the value of those away so when the foreigner came to buy some goods from you a little while later you didn't have to give them as much stuff.
As you can imagine, foreign countries didn't really like this (nor domestic savers) so politicians had to find other ways to balance the deficits. The biggest trick they found to doing this was in the form of liberalized international capital flows. Basically, this now meant that you could buy a bunch of goods from a foreign country, and instead of having to trade them back some hard goods, you just sold them part of the capital assets of your country. Houses (either directly, or in the form of ever growing mortgage debt), businesses, infrastructure. Even the future earnings of your children in the form of treasury bills (future tax obligations) and student loans. Politicians could just flog this all off so that the flow of cheap shiny toys would continue without their voters having to build the factories or perform the labor to earn them.
Of course countries like China are also playing a dangerous game, as US voters could eventually decide to default on those payments (e.g. foreign buyer bans), which is why China is rapidly trying to reduce its dependence on US trade. But for now most people are happy to trade their house and children for cheap manufactured goods, while simultaneously moaning that the Chinese want something in return.
change the student loan rules to mess them up let' (Score:2)
change the student loan rules to mess them up let's say chapter 11 and 7 comeback to student loans. Then the schools will be forced to cut costs and make the degree lead to real job skills.
Re: change the student loan rules to mess them up (Score:3)
You do realize that student loans are federally-insured, and every student that defaults or goes bankrupt incurs a cost to the American taxpayer, right?
The reason student loans can not be discharged by bankruptcy is that it used to be very common for students to take out student loans, declare bankruptcy after graduation, then simply rent an apt until their bankruptcy was 'over' so they could buy a house...
private student loans not the federally backed one (Score:2)
private student loans not the federally backed one
Call me communist ... (Score:5, Insightful)
... but this comes from the brain dead idea that everything is privatized.
You can't buy a german or french university. Well, we have a few "private schools", too. Sure. But I don't even have one in mind while I write this.
Re:Call me communist ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Call me communist ... (Score:4, Interesting)
... but this comes from the brain dead idea that everything is privatized.
You can't buy a german or french university. Well, we have a few "private schools", too. Sure. But I don't even have one in mind while I write this.
Since the company that is trying to buy this school is (Chinese) state-owned, does that mean the school is no longer a private university?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You can't buy a german or french university.
You're assuming the government wouldn't sell one if properly motivated. Well, since Germany controls the central bank of Europe, it could just print money and buy it's way out of an economic crisis, until hyperinflation kicks in, of course.
But if the government of France goes on a hiring binge and ends up underfunding it's pension system, it'll have to get the money from somewhere.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Well, as of 2016 they are 36 billion EU of their way to a 150 billion EU goal. Hmmm...
Re: (Score:2)
Well, since Germany controls the central bank of Europe, it could just print money
While the bank, that means its offices, are in Germany, Germany is in no way controlling the european currency.
And if you had followed recent developments you would see we are far from "printing money".
President of the EU central bank is the italian Mario Draghi.
Re: (Score:2)
as a highschool dropout (Score:2)
They're perfectly qualified. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why is it cash-strapped? (Score:2)
granted, I of course haven't read TFA, but considering that, as a general rule, tuition rates have increased far faster than, say, professor pay scales, why are there cash-strapped higher education institutions? Or is it that there do exist higher ed institutions that are financially responsible and have reasonable tuition, which in turn drives away students who want to spend tons of "free" loan money at more interesting colleges, and this is a group of investors looking to "fix" that "problem"?
Suck it, marxist professors (Score:1)
"The pending purchase rankles some Westminster faculty and alumni, who question what a longtime maker of steel spans knows about running an elite school whose choirs sang with maestros Leonard Bernstein, Arturo Toscanini and Seiji Ozawa."
Well, considering the school was bankrupt, I'd ask the Westminster faculty and alumni if THEY know much about running anything either.
Charlie will tell you about the new fees (Score:2)
Yeah, we might study. How much?
200000
What'll we get for 100000 dollars?
50000 dollars is all my mom will cosign for.
What do we get for 100000 dollars?
Every degree you want.
Wait... (Score:2)
You can BUY US-schools?
Wow... I guess something went wrong way before the Chinese appeared on the scene... That's the problem with selling something: It means giving it up. You can't sell a cake and eat it.
Or as they say: Us universities offer the best grades your money can buy.
They used to wear blue worker suits, cool!!! (Score:2)
It's just a kleptocracy using its dictatorial control to purchase functional things in the free west, away from potential unrest at home where they dictate so they can kleptocratize...ohhhhhhhhhh I see how this works.
Keeping an eye on their students (Score:2)
I am not comfortable with this. Something should be done to discourage
FTFA (Score:3)
FTFA: It's an opportunity for chinese schools to upgrade their art education.
"Xu Guangyu, chairman of Beijing Kaiwen and a choral singer in college, said the two institutions can operate in harmony. He runs K-12 schools in China and said Westminster could provide the knowledge to help upgrade arts education for his students. Xu said he won’t cut Westminster’s budget or staff. Westminster’s programs include master’s degrees in choral conducting, sacred music and organ performance, and notable alumni include Dorothy Maynor, founder of the Harlem School of the Arts, and Yannick Nezet-Seguin, incoming music director of the Metropolitan Opera in New York.
“They can set up our entire music curriculum and bring all kinds of exchange opportunities,” Xu said. “It’s pretty difficult to find these musical resources.”
Educational free market (Score:2)
Chinese conglomerates... (Score:2)
Sorry guys, you are realizing this too late. Chinese conglomerates are buying everything that's cash strapped and might have some use for them in the future.
In the particular case of schools, I'm not even sure if chinese government interference is as bad as american government interference anymore... at least the first one is not completely guaranteed, and there will be some pressure for regulation on the neutrality of educational material. The second not only is currently set to destroy the entire system,
Re: (Score:2)
Somehow interesting that those two species are practically indistinguishable.
At which point it makes sense to ask - why differentiate? Better to ignore in either case.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I see your mistake: You're looking at the definition put forward by socialists. Not the history.
There are no socialist societies that meet your definition, and there never will be. Socialism requires a command economy, because absent price signals and markets it can't self organize. Command economies require excessive concentration of power, that power than corrupts, Which leads to claims of 'not true socialism', but that's not true. That's exactly 'true socialism', just not what the reds wish it was.
C
Re: (Score:2)
'No true Scotsman' is the defense of socialists. Claiming the constant stream of failures 'isn't socialism'. My position is that it IS and that it's baked into the philosophy.
I also wish for your death to be soon, but no 'ill will'.
Re: (Score:2)
I think what he means is that the Chinese are about as communist anymore as the ISP market is a competitive free market. Sure, in name it still is, in practice, though, ...
Re: (Score:2)
Actually China today has more of a nationalist dictatorship than a communist one.
And those revering Mao and Stalin should feel right home, especially now that Xi has essentially become dear leader for life.
Re: (Score:2)
Or it could be that we as a people have evolved organically over the years to be a bit more mindful of those who traditionally have not been in power, rather than just thinking that they belong in the gutter we've always consigned them to.
Re: It's a small small world (Score:2)
Exactly what role would the US Secretary of Education play in the sale of a small university to a foreign concern?
Is Westminster Choir College a strategic national asset?
The US Dept of education has no regulatory or oversight responsibilities in colleges or universities, public or private.
Re: (Score:2)