The poorer are getting richer, too. But the rich gets richer faster. I don't see a problem with it, but it's funny to see how besides having more regulations, higher taxes and more government intervention (most of the time in the name of making society more equal) increases inequality at a faster rate just to see the very same people saying "we need higher taxes and more government intervention!"
Tax cuts always have a higher impact on the wealthy because, well, they pay more taxes.
This isn’t a bad thing. That money won’t dissapear. It’ll get spent or invested (either directly or indirectly by a bank if saved).
Tax cuts are good. Stop saying they’re bad. The wealthy always find loopholes because they can afford lawyers and accountats to deduct taxes or skip taxes through offshore companies, so it’s the not-so-wealthy who have a yet bigger impact but not so directly visible.
>That money won’t dissapear. It’ll get spent or invested (either directly or indirectly by a bank if saved).
Only in economics 101 would the bank need deposits for loans. In the real world there is no upper limit on money that wants to be invested, just a lack of feasible investment opportunities.
More fundamentally, governments want to stimulate the economy at all costs, so interest rates are near zero ("please take our money and create jobs") and plenty of attempts at subsidizing industries have been (and are still) made.
Since you can't quite force economic growth, startups etc., at least you can have money in circulation.
So, money in the bank, like money under the mattress, is bad for the economy. So, the tax cut may infact be bad from an economic perspective.
Taken to the logical limit that would imply that we shouldn't have taxes at all. You're assuming also that taxes are being cut across the board, but it is very unclear if the middle class will experience any positive change, while there is ample evidence that the President and most of his cabinet will make out quite well personally.
If somehow you can have a government w/o having taxes (maybe financed by seigniorage), yes. We shouldn't have taxes at all. Taxes are a necessary evil.
They absolutely help the middle class, too. The issue with being middle class is that you don't qualify for the "social safety net" deductions, but the other loopholes don't net you much in the way of absolute dollars—particularly given the investment (documentation) required.
Plus:
1) Middle class typically doesn't have the ability to structure income as capital gains.
2) (See above.)
3) Given modest contribution caps in retirement accounts, not a major "loophole" for the wealthy.
2. Itemized deductions get phased out once income exceeds a certain threshold, plus you get subject to the Alternative Minimum Tax.
3. There are limits to how much can be put in them.
4. Sure, you get a tax deduction for donations to charity. But you NO LONGER HAVE THE MONEY. You gave it away. Giving money away is giving away the wealth.
It's obviously possible to, for example, lower the lowest bracket and leave the highest the same. This would be a tax cut with no impact on the wealthy.
The issue is that it won't necessarily get spent, saving rate goes up with income which produces less currency circulation. The whole idea of trickle down economics just needs to go away.
If there's going to be government intervention in the economy (and there's going to be government intervention in the economy) then supply side economics works great in environments where there isn't enough investment.
That said, we don't live in one of those environments. We've probably had too much investment for the last 104 years or so...
It circulates but it doesn't circulate locally and it doesn't circulate quickly. The earnings of people with lower incomes tends to get reinvested directly into their local community. Higher income earners will pass their money off to a bank which may reinvest it into a local business but is as likely to invest it overseas.
Even if that's true, does it matter? Whether a dollar saved is spent locally, or saved in the bank and loaned locally, or saved in the bank and loaned to some other community, or wire transferred to family in Mexico ,or invested in a factory in Indonesia, some local community benefits.
The wealthy don't need to find loopholes, they are constructed by our lawmakers. An uneven playing field is damaging to the free market.
This is a bad thing. That money won't disappear. It'll get spent or invested (either directly or indirectly by a bank if saved)
Tax cuts are bad. Stop saying they're good. The wealthy have money to affect political decisions because they can afford lobbyists, so it's the not-so-wealthy who have a marginalized impact.
Seriously your argument is that the wealthy spend money? You know who spends money even better? The government, the government literally spends all the money. By your argument we should be giving as much money to the government as possible as they will spend, or invest it.
No the wealthy don't spend money - that's the problem. They take the money and move it offshore or into a tax shelter and it gets invested and sits.
Compare to someone who's poor - they spend most of their take-home pay on daily needs that spur the economy.
Cutting taxes for the rich only gives them more money - trickle-down theory has been proven to not work, and in fact the biggest net return for governments is to simply hand out cash (qualified as welfare/food stamps or unqualified like universal income) - that gets the government like 1.7x the amount handed out in tax receipts inbound as the cash passes through the economy.
It’ll get spent or invested (either directly or indirectly by a bank if saved).
Ah, the ol' "trickle down economics" trope that refuses to die. I've been waiting since the Reagan administration to see it actually work as advertised.
Tax cuts are good. Stop saying they’re bad.
If only saying it made it true. The current proposal doesn't look to benefit me, a household making well into six figures. Guess we'll have to work harder to make the >$400K needed to benefit from the latest "reform" proposal. That, or start funneling all of our income through an LLC. Meanwhile, at the bottom end, the taxes go up from 10% to 12%.
Tax cuts are good if you're incredibly rich (and not just mildly rich like me). For the vast majority of us, it won't benefit us at all.
"Tax cuts always have a higher impact on the wealthy because, well, they pay more taxes."
They also get the most income and wealth.
"This isn’t a bad thing. That money won’t dissapear. It’ll get spent or invested (either directly or indirectly by a bank if saved)."
Maybe. But that also doesn't mean it'll be used for something good for society, rather than Uber for Dogs.
"Tax cuts are good."
Tax cuts are a thing. By themselves, they are neither good nor bad. How they're applied is the difference. If a tax cut causes government revenues to drop to the point where they can no longer properly fund public schools, it's not the wealthy that are going to be hurt by it.
Except that tax cuts basically mean the government has less money to pay for things. I suppose if you don't rely on government for anything (like infrastructure to run your business) then that's good. Otherwise it is bad.
well, most of the federal spending goes to maintaining our welfare and warfare state. Contrary to common myth, infrastructure cost is a tiny fraction of the federal budget.
If you are concerned that your engine doesn't run efficiently, simply cutting the fuel to it doesn't actually fix any problems.
The government is a huge entity that does some very important things and wastes a lot of money (some of which being pork that it seems every party indulges in), simply assuming that cutting off the cash flow is going to improve anything is wishful thinking I think.
You know certain things will be funded (like the military) but a lot of basic services to the needy always seem to be on the chopping block despite costing a fraction of the budget (food stamps, nutritional assistance to pregnant mothers, etc).
> If you are concerned that your engine doesn't run efficiently, simply cutting the fuel to it doesn't actually fix any problems.
Since you're using a ridiculous analogy here, one can easily point to CAFE standards that have dramatically increased the efficiency of cars over the past 20 years by doing exactly what you're describing - cutting the fuel...
Well, as the cost of fuel goes up people are incentivized to purchase more fuel efficient vehicles. When the supply isn't unlimited you have to be more careful about how it's used.
In my lifetime I've never seen a government program cut costs or gain efficiency. At the point something like that happens I'll be much more open to government programs. In the current environment both in terms of bloat and political hostility, it's really hard to see any benefit.
Rather than worry about throwing more tax money at the problem, why not focus on how much better things would be if the department was 10% more efficient?
I'm not disagreeing about efficiencies, I'm saying the way to do it is actually do the work rather than simply slash the funding and assume that the correct efficiencies will be implemented. I think that is what is irresponsible.
Can you point to any specifics about what is inefficient? I'm not doubting that it is the case, but when you say you've never seen it is that because its never happened right in front of you or you've looked hard for it and it just isn't there? I'm not trying to be a jerk, but I think we all have a tendency to criticize things we don't understand as well as we would like to think and I try to resist that urge unless I actually know a lot of details. After being a developer for a few years, I'm a lot less likely to criticize some piece of software or code someone else has written until I actually analyze it myself and try to improve it, often times I find there are reasons for a lot of the corners that were cut or hacks that were implemented. Not always, but as often as not I can't actually improve something as much as I would have initially assumed.
The sibling analogy doesn't really hold -- comparing the government to an engine has the inherent assumption that you're in control of it. I don't believe that's been the case in the United States for some number of decades. A better analogy might be to compare it to a runaway train on a downgrade.
All this fatalism is wrong, nonsense propaganda. The "wealthy" in plain fact are often killed with survivors exiled en masse. I know tons of bitter Maryland and DC former wealthy who were punished for collusion with our very own state and exiled to our little patch of North American pizza cheese hell to remember. I know world bankers who work with now assassinated Russian billionaires.
You obviously have no comparative data, relevant associates or historical acumen whatsoever. Dare to say something exceedingly smart, discerning and not wish fulfilling. Noise obscures any possible policy signal. All "old saw" claims of "what everyone knows" only subtract from value creation, good planning and sound accounting. That will remain true tomorrow and 10 years from now.
Stay away from needy or greedy cheerleaders spewing nonsense. Just wait and some dummy will a wave a flag next.
It would also be more vulnerable to the influence of the US behemoth, the oil-hungry giant that considers south-America its sphere of influence.
I don't want to appear pro-Chavez, many of his actions were despicable. But understand that "free-market" in their case means an economy controlled by USA. Chavez came into power precisely because the free-market economy before him failed to raise wages even as the GDP increased. It also failed to diversify.
Economically, Venezuela has two problems: over-reliance on oil and corruption. In 2017, we can consider it proven that neither central planning, nor free-market have succeeded alone in solving these problems. They are mostly orthogonal to the organization of the economy.
Politically, it has one problem: they don't like USA. Look at Saudi Arabia. They are centrally planned and they are extremely dependent on oil. But things go well economically. You just have to let US companies install themselves there and don't call yourself a socialist.
Why can't a free market diversify Venezuela's economy? Well when you have the world's biggest proven oil reserves (yes, more than Saudi Arabia since a few years) and an underdeveloped oil sector, where do you expect investments to flow?
You can redirect some of these investment by giving the government an amount of control over what the oil industry does, by putting quotas in place, this kind of things. But then, you are opposed by "the free world".
This same thing happened under a more liberal capitalist government before. That's literally how Chavez got into power. The biggest difference between then and now is the severity of the oil price drop. An exacerbating factor is that the same forces that tried to coup Chavez in 2002 are of course still politically active and, rationally given their interests, using their economic connections to exacerbate the economic collapse through various means. The United States recently freezed some Venezuelan government finances which is obviously intended to further destabilize the government.
Venezuela is a shitshow, to put it bluntly. But the shallow analyses which focus purely on ideology instead of the physical reality on the ground is asinine, bordering on propaganda (Vox tends to swing randomly between center-left progressivism and center-right neoliberalism). Is the government of Venezuela incompetent? Probably as incompetent as most. Are they dealing with an unprecedented economic collapse caused by structural factors? Yes. On the other hand, most people don't actually know how the Venezuelan economy is structured. They just know "socialism bad" and "capitalism good". It's tiresome because the same structural deficiencies at play in their economy today was there decades ago, when they weren't "socialist".
It should be noted what happens to countries whose economies collapse because their place in the world economy no longer exists and then seek to renormalize via the accepted capitalist channels (like the IMF and the like). The entire country gets sold off to foreign interests and they spend the rest of their decades financing a debt they can never pay off.
As for the repressiveness of the Venezuelan state, it's not surprising. The violence of a state is directly proportional to how threatened it feels. When a state is failing, it is going to be violent. Cf. Spain and Catalonia at the moment.
>>This same thing happened under a more liberal capitalist government before. That's literally how Chavez got into power. The biggest difference between then and now is the severity of the oil price drop.
There were plenty of petro-states which didn't see the kind of economic devastation Venezuela did when oil prices plummeted. The key difference was that other petro-states had a robust private sector, which not only meant they had more private savings that halped the economy absorb the shock from low oil prices, but also meant they were more diversified.
The drop in oil prices should never have led to mass malnutrition. Venezuela even with low oil prices is a middle income country. It was socialist policies like price controls that led to the long food lines and empty supermarket shelves.
>>An exacerbating factor is that the same forces that tried to coup Chavez in 2002 are of course still politically active and, rationally given their interests, using their economic connections to exacerbate the economic collapse through various means. The United States recently freezed some Venezuelan government finances which is obviously intended to further destabilize the government.
This is what the Venezuelan government is blaming its economic problems on, but there is actually no evidence at all that the intervention of the US government is anywhere near enough to be responsible for any significant portion of the economic decline of Venezuela.
There are no significant sanctions on Venezuela and the US imports much of its oil from the country.
In my view it is a sign more of the fact that Venezuela thought it could depend so much on oil that it failed to diversify rather than a failure of its mode of planning, though that's not without criticism, one would have hoped they learned from the disaster of the USSR's Five Year Plan.
Price controls aren't really a Socialist policy - the Socialist policy in this case would be the gradual change from the production of commodities to the production only of use-values, lacking their exchange value dimension. If price controls are a Socialist policy, then it doesn't take much for Socialism to come about - but that's clearly not what Socialists are talking about when they talk about Socialist policy. Marx, for one, wasn't in favour of price controls to my knowledge. Nor were the other Socialist economists and theorists. I'm not sure where you're getting the idea from other than the oft-repeated myth that Socialism is merely when the government "does stuff".
Venezuela's socialist policies made the entire economy dependent on the wisdom of the state. When the state erred, it meant a much more systemic collapse than would otherwise have happened. If the private sector had been allowed to retain a significant role in the economy, the economy would have had more decorrelated economic forces, which would have made a systemic collapse less likely.
>>I'm not sure where you're getting the idea from other than the oft-repeated myth that Socialism is merely when the government "does stuff".
When Venezuela's economic ministers say things like "the law of supply and demand is a lie" to justify price controls, I assume it's motivated by their socialist ideology, and blame the policy on that ideology.
>When Venezuela's economic ministers say things like "the law of supply and demand is a lie" to justify price controls
They can't be very good Socialists then; Marx was a supporter of the law of supply and demand, and its functioning is extremely obvious to anyone familiar with the idea of markets, even without training. Marx didn't deny it nor did his contemporaries or predecessors.
>I assume it's motivated by their socialist ideology, and blame the policy on that ideology.
The North Korean statesmen have made disparaging remarks about democracy, but they claim to be democratic. Yet we would both agree not to blame democracy for what is happening in North Korea. Is there any evidence that Venezuela is actually implementing Socialist policy any more than the DPRK is implementing democratic policy?
correct, Socialism according to Marx is not 'the government does stuff'. 'the government does stuff', when the private sector is replaced by government functions, is really State Capitalism (because the state controls the means of production, not the workers). In fact, it was Stalin that declared 'when the state is in charge, we got socialism'. It confused everybody but it's wrong.
Curiously enough, Chavez had similar things to say about state capitalism:
>>“It is impossible, within the framework of the capitalist system, to solve the grave problems of poverty of the majority of the world’s population,” the Venezuelan leader said. “We must transcend capitalism. But we cannot resort to state capitalism, which would be the same perversion of the Soviet Union. We must reclaim socialism as a thesis, a project, and a path, but a new type of socialism, a humanist one which puts humans and not machines or the state ahead of everything."
Socialism is always one execution away from utopia.
And did he achieve this stated goal? no... so you can't pretend like he did achieve it, and then somehow the failed outcome proves that the goal is itself invalid.
I don't think that what politicians claim is a sound method to understand the definition of something, especially when we _do_ have the definition already (again, what Marx described).
Just because Chavez made claim X, that doesn't mean that the original definition is somehow altered.
And remember, your original claim was that price controls are socialist, which still doesn't make sense; pivoting to something Chavez said doesn't correct this.
I am no fan of what Venezuela or Chavez is doing, and I don't support their policies.
If you want an example of something that is more faithful to what Marx described, take a look at the Mondragon Corporation, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation which is a competitive worker cooperative based in Spain. Notice that this has nothing to do with the government.
They closed import/export for the private sector. Only federal government handles it. Which led to export just oil (inefficiently if I may add), so when priced collapsed they had to decide if pay debt and face hunger, or fight hunger and face a financial default. Guess which one they decided?
But what about free markets? Why don't they just have free markets? This alternative is just pure rhetoric hardly explicated in its material form: Sell the country off to international corporations, saddle your country with unmanageable debt, and beg the international financial system to keep you alive so long as you have resources worth extracting.
Honestly, it would be fine if people were just forthright in proposing those policies. It's always dressed up in the language of freedom and liberty in the most dishonest way. Venezuela is failing now, I can point to several other nations that did exactly what they were supposed to according to the interests of Capital, and they aren't looking so hot either.
> This same thing happened under a more liberal capitalist government before. That's literally how Chavez got into power.
That's not true at all. The previous government was socializing the economy, starting with nationalizing oil in 1976. From Wikipedia: "The election of Carlos Andrés Pérez in 1973 coincided with the 1973 oil crisis, in which Venezuela's income exploded as oil prices soared; oil industries were nationalized in 1976. This led to massive increases in public spending, but also increases in external debts, which continued into the 1980s when the collapse of oil prices during the 1980s crippled the Venezuelan economy. As the government started to devalue the currency in February 1983 to face its financial obligations, Venezuelans' real standards of living fell dramatically. A number of failed economic policies and increasing corruption in government led to rising poverty and crime, worsening social indicators, and increased political instability."
"After Pérez initiated such liberal economic policies and made Venezuelan markets more free, Venezuela's GDP went from a -8.3% decline in 1989 to growing 4.4% in 1990 and 9.2% in 1991, though wages remained low and unemployment was high among Venezuelans.
Some state that "neoliberalism" was the cause of Venezuelan economic difficulties, though overreliance on oil prices and a fractured political system without parties agreeing on policies caused much of the problems."
Though after dismissing a lot of Chavists as conspiracy-theorists, I have seen some outrageous mistranslations and downright lies about Venezuela from the anti-Chavist side, taken uncritically by western media as factual, I am now very careful about sources there. There is a very active propaganda on both sides there.
In a country with the largest oil reserves in the world and an underdevelopped oil industry, I doubt that free market forces would naturally tend to diversify the economy. On the contrary it would lead to increased investments there. I would like to remind that under Chavez, his centrally planned economy was criticized for hindering the oil sector development.
The other ranking where Venezuela is high is corruption. That is the problem you want to solve first. High corruption, under free market or centrally planned economy, is not going to lead to good outcomes.
Forget the economic model, it is the justice and democratic model that is important.
That's true, I think that Socialists should abandon older and rigid methods of central planning; research has been active within the Socialist community for finding new methods of planning, such as the work of Paul W. Cockshott.
That said, Venezuela is far from a centrally planned economy.
There’s a lot of hate and resentment in that article. Sure, maybe Bodega isn’t the brightest startup. But who cares? If it’s a bad idea, nature/market will make it go away.
If bodegas/corner stores whatever are worth it, people will continue to buy from there and Bodega nor any other “shiny” startup will stand a chance against them.
My guess is she doesn’t believe in freemarket and thinks that someone can simply kill corner stores by throwing money at a startup.
I'm not sure it is a race issue. Times were different. People are now accepting that drug consumption doesn't make you a criminal.
At some point Britain thought that wealthy highly-educated people were incapable of being criminals, until time proved them wrong. Science is always evolving.
In a fair system, black and white defendants who score the same number of points under this formula would spend the same time beyond bars. But The Herald-Tribune found that judges disregard the guidelines, sentencing black defendants to longer prison terms in 60 percent of felony cases, 68 percent of serious, first-degree crimes and 45 percent of burglaries. In third-degree felony cases — the least serious and broadest class of felonies — white Florida judges sentenced black defendants to 20 percent more prison time than white defendants.
The war on drugs weighs particularly heavily on black defendants. The police target their neighborhoods, herding people into a court system where judges are demonstrably harder on black offenders. The report found that nearly half of the counties in Florida sentenced African-Americans convicted of felony drug possession to more than double the jail time of whites — even when their backgrounds were the same.
This may just be a Florida problem, but I doubt it.
I'd like to see a control for the amount of money spent on legal defense. The anecdote in that report itself suggests that it's the skill level of the defense attorney which is most likely a dominant factor.
From someone I know with personal experience, after they were charged with possession with intent to distribute due to growing pot, they had 3 choices. Go to jail, spend $X on an attorney who would get them probation, or spend 10 * $X on an attorney who would get them off. Both attorneys had perfect records, n>100, at their respective objective.
So, black people have less money to spend on legal defense, because . . . ? And, do you think that the people in charge of the system don't know that black people have less money to spend on legal defense? Do you think they're unaware of the history of slavery -> convict leasing -> our modern prison system?
Male vs Women rape statistics seem to denote the same thing, 10% difference, 18% difference, -5% difference. How many cases did the study cover? Looks to be about 300 given the dataset from the website.
I would agree with this perspective. Over the last few decades there has definitely been a change in how people view addiction and more importantly how to address it. Harm reduction has much more traction then 20 years ago.
Quite the opposite. Everyone praises Karl Marx and Keynes, although they been proven wrong many times. Most Millenials think that Capitalism and freemarkets are evil, while Socialism is good. History has proven otherwise
I subscribe to the Chicago school way of thinking way more than Marx or Keynesian economics, but I totally disagree. Everything about economics can be wrong. You can't control for every variable in a market. It just isn't possible. Even economic "laws" like supply and demand have counter examples like Giffen goods.
Counter examples only show that something does not work in all cases. It isn't a proof that something doesn't work in any case. Supply and demand is going to hold true in the vast majority of cases despite the existence of counter examples. In a similar vein, you can't say that an economic model is invalid in all cases because there are counter examples.
There are a ton of external factors that lead to the success or failure of a market. Culture, politics, resources, and industrialization play a huge role in shaping the market. These things are ever changing. Argue against the model, not its success or failure.
>You can't control for every variable in a market. It just isn't possible. Even economic "laws" like supply and demand have counter examples like Giffen goods.
That's the whole point. Markets are decentralized brains, while Socialism advocates that a government as a central planner will be more efficient (it could be more efficient in specific cases like total war or natural disasters) and lead to Communism where we won't even need a government because society will behave as one being.
I don't think you know much about Marx or Keynes, if you conflate them like this. Keynes has been proven right as thoroughly as it is practically possible to prove an economist right. The greatest economic expansion in the modern world happened during the poswar period in the US, western European and certain Asian economies when those economies were entirely under the influence of Keynesian policies. When Keynesian policies started being moved away in favor of Friedman's monetarist policies, in the mid 80's growth promptly slowed.
South America rejected Keneysian policies for what they believed were more "free market" policies. They suffered greatly, and they did not experience the massive postwar growth the Western world and the Asian Keynesian countries (Japan, Taiwan, S Korea) experienced. This was a great tragedy, because south america should have done great as they were the only corner of the world not affected by WW2. But they remained mired in poverty.
It is difficult to prove an economist right or wrong because it is difficult to run experiments in macro economics. But as much as it is possible to prove an economist right, Keynes has been proven right.
The current US government debt has nothing to do with Keynes. The current debt is the result of our ruling classes thinking they could have endless multi-front war and tax cuts at the same time. If this was a Keynes debt it would be spent on massive infrastructure projects within the US, to make our economy much more efficient.
Furthermore, you probably do not remember this, but the Clinton administration was paying back the debt and had America on a path to being debt free. But Bill Clinton, scumbag as he was, wasn't stupid. The wars he started were very short and very cheap.
The only country in South America that kept loyal to the Chicago School was Chile and its results really show.
The rest is very Keynesian and it shows. I'm from South America, trust me. Saying that you're a libertarian here is taken as if saying you're a fascist. Guess who they blame for our own failures? Capitalism and imperialism, of course.
I'm against reductive poles like "free market/no regulation/efficient market" VS "socialism/communism". That whole axis of either you're pro-capitalism OR pro-socialism does not make sense. It is a false dichotomy. The fact that socialism failed does not magically make capitalism is perfect, and the fact that I criticize some fallacies brought by simple models of economics does not make me a socialist!
One can criticize the current system without implying socialism/communism is the way to go!! I believe the current system has many flaws and they can be reformed. All systems have flaws, and instead of throwing our hands up and saying "welp this is the best system we can do!" we can choose to shape the market when it is good for society.
The market exists to serve society, not the other way around. It is only a tool.
Every succesful first world country is built with social-democratic provisions to unconstrained markets, those are very indebted to Keynes in particular.
What problems? So you can't collect all the data on your costumers and do with it as you see fit? And when it gets leaked just say: "Oops, sorry"? If for some startups taking private data seriously is a "problem", I want to see them burn in fire.
The more I think about it, the more I feel that if you're a startup, thinking about this from the get-go won't hurt you and won't really cost you.
What I mean by that is, it's easier to build your db and backups to comply with these laws before you have anything set in stone, than after you have any meaningful amount of personal data. Like, if you organise your backups and db to happily be able to handle removal of requested data before you accrue too much technical debt/inertia then you're going to be ahead of anyone who has to retrofit, which in many ways actually puts you at an advantage.
Also, I for one won't be mourning the loss of the business model that parasitically lives of exploiting user data.
I used to think the same as you when I still was a student. “How can these people critize the wonders of college? I’m learning so much!”. Then I realized I learnt nothing.
Disclaimer: it wasn’t a fancy college, but still.
I just think education needs some sort of revolution
