One thing that is often misinterpreted is that certain institutions get their prestige because of what they produce. Although this has at times in the past been true, it is not to be automatically assumed at this point in American history. Many of the United States best known universities are not prestigious on current accomplishments alone. They possibly are accomplished on the past doings of professors or students, but currently fail to meet up to the expectations that are put on the top schools in our country. A problem is that instead of continuing to move our though forward and advance ideas that have been the foundation of intellectual thought, educated people continue to build on fallacies from the past, or create new ideas, sufficing small amounts of evidence to prove their point and disprove past points.
Current intellectual thought is not precisely that. In many of these institutions, knowledge is not necessarily rewarded. Professors from the get-go teach students that they don't know things, in order to create a student body who believes that they do not know things, as opposed to teaching this student body what they need to know in order to form opinions and create knowledgeable ideas of their own. I make this statement based on the fact that many students in todays colleges don't come out knowing or needing to know what it is they study, which allows professors to in turn substitute rhetoric and personal beliefs in place of actual learning. From the beginning of postsecondary education, students are taught to believe whatever it may be that their professors are saying. This allows the professors to suffice propaganda for proper knowledge. Professors in turn use this extremely modifiable minds to meet their own ends. An example of this is Barack Obama. Mr. Obama is none the wiser for what he was taught at elitist schools. Listening to him speak belies the fact that he even went to one of these institutions, because of his seeming lack of knowledge about relevant thought and political ideas. The idea that tire inflation and tuneups will allow for as much oil to be saved as would be gotten from drilling is an idiotic hope that is unfounded, unintelligent and otherwise worthless. If, perhaps, 300 million Americans were driving around on flat tires with untuned engines, then that idea might work out. This, however, is not true as many Americans do the simple things that they can to make their cars run more efficiently and correctly. If institutions taught what knowledge driven thought consisted of, civic leaders would not be leading us into the same cruxes that have plagued our society since the beginning of the 20th Century.
The beacon of American thought is learning and knowledge, yet somehow the people in the places that matter most have let that go, in hopes of passing their own agendas. Allowances for personal error are seldom made in American politics and society as it is seen as a weakness. As Americans are taught to be more accepting of others, those preaching that have done the opposite with their own. When a politician changes his or her opinion because they have realized the err of their ways, they are seen as a “flip flopper”, and not as someone who upon closer examination has decided to fix where they have wronged. I do not see the progress in politics or society that once set America apart from the rest of the world. Even the one institution that we perfected and allowed to function under our watch has started to come under fire from the elitist people who have become the bane of it in the first place. I am of course talking about capitalism, which if left to its own devices will function better than any known, and possible unknown, economic system. Adam Smith frequently spoke of an invisible hand that guided the economy to perfection or at least proper function. This invisible hand allowed for consumers and producers to decide where and what their desired price would be. An invisible hand was not government intervention, nor was it pressure from unrelated or uninvolved parties. This would be a visible hand, and would be synonymous with a communist or socialist economy.
Now is a more important time than the time of Adam Smith, as we not only have to stick up for our economy, but also our way of life and our rights as politicians and the educational elite allow more people to be a part of their plan to take over the American way of thinking. The American way of thinking is for individuals to have their own opinions, not for a elite group to tell people how to think, and if there is one thing to hold onto, that is it.




Of course, in Obama's defense if he were to speak of those thoughts and political ideas he was presumably taught half the country would have no idea what he was talking about. As for your belief in that invisible hand, I'm not so sure. I think it only works when people put their desire for economic success second to their ethics. And the problem even in this case is that the risk of a sort of tyranny of the majority is still too great. If there weren't some sort of government intervention in our economy I think we'd find a lot of cruel and dirty practices taking place. Capitalism will make a strong economy only if a strong economy is all we as a society want. But I do agree with you on elitest institutions, what makes them great isn't necessarily all that great. Harvard is only great because we say it's great. I personally don't understand why it'd be worth my money.
People follow the invisible hand because it gives them the best possible option for success, and if they were to do something illegal there would be punishment. The problem we today face is that capitalism has fallen by the wayside as socialistic programs have seeped into our economy and destroyed the way capitalism is supposed to work. No matter what amount of government intervention you have, people will always try to skirt laws, but it would make it easier for everyone if we followed proper economic theory.
Obama really does not have that much knowledge that general Americans know about. He does not understand economics(coming from an economists perspective) and he certainly does not have a history of understanding politics from a first hand perspective.
I'm guessing you're not opposed to some sort of government intervention in the economy like anti-trust laws or equal opportunity employment laws. So, what currently socialized parts of our economy would you like to see us do away with water treatment? Minimum wage? In what areas do you feel the government is overly involved in and how would you have us change it?
Obama may not have a history of understanding politics but he has been quite successful at running for president, so isn't it safe to assume he does have a good understand of politics even without much prior history? I'm not a huge Obama supporter but my choice is between him and John McCain. Do you feel McCain would be a better choice?
I dont see how he has been successful at running for president. He has not even won his party's nomination yet. It is presumptive.
I do not like any government intervention whether it be minimum wage laws or any of the social programs such as welfare, student aid etc.