California Free Press

4 of top 5 Wealthiest Americans are College Dropouts!

 

 

 

 

 

by John Lawrence

There's no shortage of people telling us: "Stay in college. College graduates make more on average than non-college graduates." I say BS. According to the Forbes list of the 400 wealthiest Americans, 4 out of the top 5 are college dropouts including Bill Gates, the wealthiest American at $51 billion, who dropped out of Harvard. Only Warren Buffet (#2 at $40 billion) graduated from college although he only went to satisfy his parents' wishes. He was already a fairly wealthy investor before college, and continued on his chosen path after college. College was for him merely an interruption in his life. Paul Allen (#3 at $22.5 billion), Microsoft co-founder, dropped out of the University of Washington.

Michael Dell (#4 at $18 billion) dropped out of the University of Texas, and Larry Ellison (#5 at $17 billion) dropped out of 2 colleges: University of Illinois and University of Chicago.

These folks are all multi-billionaires. All are college dropouts with the exception of one reluctant college graduate for whom college didn't deter him on his chosen path. Now a lot of pro-college pundits will tell you that, statistically speaking, college graduates make more money than non-college graduates. Well folks, I'm here to tell you that you can lie with statistics...big time. Did any of their statistical samples include Bill Gates or Paul Allen or Michael Dell or Larry Ellison? I think not. These folks have more combined income and wealth probably than the whole pool of college graduates put together. Talk about a society based on lies. The biggest lie is that you have to go to college to do well financially.

If you go to college, chances are you'll make chump change albeit more chump change than most college dropouts. However, statistically speaking, college dropouts are probably on average wealthier than college graduates as we have seen from the above examples. How could they not be when the four above mentioned individuals have a combined wealth that most countries in the world would envy for their GDP. At a combined wealth of $138.5 billion (if I did my math right) the top 5 wealthiest Americans have a GDP greater than most African countries. Now you could go on down the list of the 400 wealthiest Americans and check each one's educational status: graduate or dropout. The results might be surprising! That's a subject for future blog entries. Maybe we'll take 10 at a time till we exhaust the Forbes 400 list.

The message is clear: if you know what you want out of life, go for it; forget college. If you don't know what you want in life, then maybe college is a better alternative to hanging around on the street corner. Basically college will get you a better income if you are mediocre and don't know what you want. If you're exceptional, then college will only get in your way.

Of course, not everyone who follows their dreams will achieve the financial success of these gentlemen. A lot of people, myself included, could care less about this level of financial success. But I think the lesson is clear. Don't believe the BS that parents and educators are telling you. They have a business to promote. Yes, folks, education is a business. College students support a huge cadre of professors, administrators, librarians etc. etc. down to the janitors.

Information of any and all kinds is freely available to anyone who seeks it. Libraries are free. You can find out almost anything via the Internet. You don't need formal education to learn anything you want to learn, much less a degree! I am in favor of self-education. I only wish I knew what my direction was when I was younger and had the guts to follow it then. But for me college was marking time until I figured out what I really wanted to do with my life.

For more on this subject please see my website Social Choice and Beyond.

What is Preferensism?

by John Lawrence

Preferensism is a name I coined to describe a society based on individual preferences. The motto is "from each according to his preferences, to each according to her preferences." It is based on social choice, which amalgamates individual preferences in order to formulate an overall societal preference, and utilitarianism, which is based on the greatest good for the greatest number. Pundits have pooh-poohed utilitarianism because "you cannot maximize two independent variables simultaneously." What do they know? It turns out (as mathematicians like to say) that you can maximize the greatest good of a society according to some reasonable measure. Then assuming there are many ways to do this, which would be the case in any imaginable society, you could choose that way which minimizes inequality. Hence you would have the greatest good, and given that accomplishment, the greatest good for the greatest number.

Given a set of individual preferences by each individual in society, the algorithm or method for combining them would try to get each individual an individualized solution as close to his first preference as possible consistent with maximizing satisfaction, utility or happiness (whatever you want to call it) over the whole society. Imagine a society based on the Gross Domestic Happiness (GDH) as opposed to the Gross Domestic Product (GDP).

Preferensism would generalize the concept of voting and merge the political and economic systems. Just as proportional representation is a generalized voting scheme which guarantees that each minority is represented in parliament according to its percentage in the general population, preferensism would obtain economic and political solutions tailored to each individual insofar as is possible. For instance, a set of preferences might entail 100 work -consumption scenarios. First preference might be to work 10 hours a week and receive the equivalent of $10,000.00 worth of purchasing power. Last preference might be to work 60 hours a week and receive the equivalent of $500.00 worth of purchasing power. When amalgamated over the whole society the individual might end up with a solution in which he worked 30 hours a week in return for $2000.00 worth of purchasing power.

Each set of preferences would be treated democratically. That is to say that each would have one unit of voting power. But instead of voting for a solution that applied to the whole society such as the election of a President, the individual would be voting for a solution that applied only to himself insofar as economic issues were concerned. Politically, which is to say for issues for which an individualized solution is not possible, Preferensism would obtain a solution as close to an individualized solution as possible. That is the same solution might apply to all the individuals in a certain geographical area, for example, while a different solution would apply to individuals living ion a different geographical area. Also the society would approach a direct as opposed to a representational democracy since citizens would be "voting" on goods and services consumed collectively as well as those consumed individually. Finally, if only one outcome is feasible and there are only two possible alternatives, voting would resemble the typical election we're all familiar with such as the election of a President.

Therefore, as the "voting" became more political and less economic, outcomes or solutions would apply to larger and larger minorities, and, as the voting became more economic and less political, it would apply to smaller and smaller minorities and ultimately to the individual when it concerned his or her work-consumption situation.

For more information on Preferensism, see my website: Social Choice and Beyond.

Katrina and Price Gouging

by John Lawrence

I just heard on CNN about the people who can't return to New Orleans because rents have doubled and tripled. The interviewer asked the people seeking to return if they thought this was "price gouging." What country are these people living in? There is no such thing as price gouging in a capitalist economy - only the law of supply and demand. Prices are charged according to what the market will bear. That's the only consideration. It seems like half the population (the tenants) is living in a world that doesn't exist, where concepts like "fair prices" and "price gouging" have some kind of meaning. These concepts are totally inoperable in the US or any capitalist economy and are perpetuated by ignorant people who are living in a fairyland or who are seeking to hide the economic realities and facts of life. The landlords know what they are doing. They are charging what the market will bear. Why? Well the housing stock (supply) is way down because of all the homes or apartments that were damaged or destroyed by the hurricane. Demand exceeds supply. Therefore, the price goes up. It's as simple as that.

It's not a question of whether "price gouging" is legal or illegal. It's just that the concept doesn't exist in a capitalist economy. Why do supposedly knowledgeable people (like CNN) perpetuate this myth? Why doesn't the educational system disabuse people of these notions? Because it serves the purposes of the owners of property (I hate to say the capitalist class) to keep the rest of us in the dark and to perpetuate the myth.

They interviewed a property manager who claimed that he had to raise rents because half his units were out of commission, and he had to make it up with the other half. BS. The market doesn't care if half his units are out of commission. If someone magically quintupled the housing supply overnight, he would have to reduce his rents just to keep the other half of his properties rented. Again it's supply and demand. He said laborers who are repairing damaged properties are charging more than they used to before the flood and that's why he had to raise rents. Again BS. The laborers are charging more because they are in greater demand than they were before the flood and there is a lesser supply of them. Again the law of supply and demand. It also works in labor's favor sometimes.

Property owners and laborers are profiting from the law of supply and demand. It doesn't always work to benefit owners - just most of the time since normally laborers are a dime a dozen.

When are we going to stop deluding ourselves and others about "fair pricing" and "price gouging" which by the way, even if it did exist is not illegal in any state. How could it be ? Capitalism (which is based on the law of supply and demand) and price gouging are oxymorons. I hate to see the perpetuation of this myth that nice people charge "fair prices" and don't "price gouge." Adam Smith would be rolling over in his grave. See the blog on my  website Social Choice and Beyond for more on the law of supply and demand.

Politicians Need War

by John Lawrence

War is the mother's milk of politicians. The latest example of this, of course, is the War on Terror. This is George W. Bush's big claim to fame. If 19 guys hadn't pulled a dastardly act on September 11, 2001, George W would have no legacy whatsoever. Prior to that time his administration was floundering trying carry out the perennial Republican agenda of lowering taxes for the wealthy, trashing Social Security, and eliminating programs designed to help the poor. 9/11 gave him his chance for a unique and appealing legacy: he defended America from the threat of terrorism.

A little history is in order. From 1945 to 1989 the US fought the "Cold War." Of course, a war always has to have a unique name. "Cold War," "War on Terrorism," something catchy. For 45 years or so politicians built their careers on the Cold War. Now they are salivating at the prospect of fighting the War on Terror for the next 50 to 100 years or more. All they have to do to get elected is to stand up and say America will never back down to terrorists. Remember the guys who were painted as being "soft on Communism?" Well, now, those same guys will have to prove they are not soft on Terrorism, that they'll stand tall and never back down to a Terrorist. The guy who is the most macho at playing this game will be the guy who gets elected.

George W. Bush is the innovator of the War on Terrorism. His main goal is to convince America that the dastardly acts of 19 mainly Saudi citizens is tantamount to a declaration of war. He gets to be a "wartime President" and we all know that they are the most compelling kind. Stop to consider for a minute. Wouldn't the acts of the aforementioned Saudi citizens and such a ragtag bunch as al Quaeda call more justifiably for a skirmish on terrorism rather than a war? But what President wants to preside over a skirmish? No, the Bush propaganda machine had to build this up into a war. And you can't have a war unless you go ahead and invade a sovereign nation, hence the war in Iraq. But why didn't they invade Saudi Arabia where most of the 9/11 terrorists were from? Because Saddam Hussein was an easy mark. Because the propaganda machine had already sufficiently demonized Saddam Hussein that nobody would feel sorry for him if he were overthrown. So you need a war not a skirmish. You couldn't have conservative commentators like Ann Coulter get up and defend the Bush administration's egregious flaunting of the Constitution unless you could justify it by saying "We're at war!" If it were just a skirmish, illegal wiretaps would be out of the question.

Getting back to "how to get elected." Just start a war and then claim you're the best (most macho) one to defend America and the other guy is soft on (blank). You fill in the blank: Communism, Terror etc. How much mileage the Republican Party has gotten out of this formula! How they demonized first Dukakis with the Will Horton ads and then the clippage of a silly looking Dukakis riding around in a tank. Obviously, he wasn't "hard" enough to be President. How clever they are to take a war hero like John Kerry and then make him look stupid riding around in a Swift Boat.

Consider Bush's job: Propagandist in Chief! His main job is to convince the American people that the war in Iraq is necessary. If we thought for a minute that thousands of American lives and hundreds of billions of dollars were too high a price to pay to get rid of a tin horn dictator, well then, Bush's legacy would turn into a pile of crap. Even his Republican base would turn on him. The war in Iraq is necessary to preserve George W. Bush's and Cheney's and Rumsfeld's egos. Therefore, it will continue as long as they're in power regardless of "events on the ground." When the pressure gets too great for them, they simply talk about bringing home the troops "next year," and this lets the steam off the pressure cooker of the anti-war movement. Whewww!!The troops are coming home next year. We can all relax! Of course, next year everyone will have forgotten about that particular news cycle, and the troops may or may not come home depending on whether or not the Generals (who take their orders ultimately from none other than George W) think they should.

So George Bush's main (only?) job is to convince the American people that war is necessary, that we have to "finish the job" and "stay the course." To bring the troops home would be to admit that the Bush administration was wrong and then what legacy would they have?

American power can at least maintain a presence in Iraq indefinitely and certainly until Bush leaves office. If all the troops came home the next day after Bush leaves office on orders of a Democratic President, the Republicans can argue ad infinitum that the Democrat, whoever the unlucky fellow or lady might be, lost the war in Iraq, and that if the Bush doctrine had been followed by the next President all would have been well thus preserving (at least as argued by conservative commentators) a fig leaf of the Bush legacy. Bush was the guy who stood tall and defended America. The next guy was a weak MF who lost the war on terror. Oh the mileage they'll get out of that one!

In summary, the Bush administration's ego could not possibly permit bringing the troops home. It is out of the question for them even to entertain the possibility that at some point we would reach the pass where  vanquished American lives and lost treasure would be considered to have been squandered in vain. American lives and treasure must continue to be spent to support the Bush administration's ego. To admit the whole thing was a colossal mistake would be to lose face totally. Therefore, the Propagandist in Chief must continue to give speeches written by the best speechwriters the Republicans can muster in order to win the hearts and minds, not of the Iraqis, but of the American people.