David Jones: Who Is Really Shaking a Fist at God?

Op-Ed, May 13, 2012, Charlotte Observer

Like David Jones, I am eager for a new social paradigm between gay and straight people.  Unlike him, I am not an attorney.  “Discredit the witness” is a tactic so prevalent in political discourse that it has become repugnant. 

This tactic is part of a strategy to gain emotional influence over the listening audience.  Like most advertising that attempts to persuade, the ability to press the listener’s emotional buttons is the holy grail of public communication.  Our culture believes that, in order to persuade another to take action or change an opinion, the listener needs to be wrapped in a warm blanket of emotional congruence with the speaker’s aims.  

This is emotional manipulation, pure and simple.  I reject it as a basis for decision-making, yet its predominant role in politics, fundraising, and consumer advertising is growing.  Are we saying that the modern light saber of leadership and influence is the ability to manipulate?  Let’s call the bluff:  if this is really what we value as a society, then let’s stop spending so much money teaching our children to think.  If not, proceed immediately to reconcile beliefs and behavior. 

Go ahead,  be the voice in the wilderness that encourages others to make decisions and sell ideas based on the merits.  I hear that emotional manipulation is how street gangs recruit tweens to join up.  Please, please, leaders in the US, stop teaching our young people that manipulation is the path to power.

People say that the volatility in the stock market after the mortgage debacle had everything to do with investors not trusting either the government or corporations to tell the truth. 

There it is:  if people trust you, manipulation is not necessary.

Get an education appraisal before you mortgage your future

The article in today's Charlotte Observer (link here: Even after bankruptcy, trapped by student debt) about the 2005 law that prohibits borrowers from wiping out student loans in bankruptcy prompted this idea. 

1.  Colleges give every degree a dollar value. This would equal the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) database average earnings for someone with that degree, multiplied by seven.  This amount is a proxy for the student’s projected earnings over the next seven years.

2.  The value of a degree is online at the university’s website with their admissions information about the majors and degrees they offer.

3.  If the value of a degree is overstated and the university cannot substantiate their claims with BLS data, the student has a cause of action against the school.

4.  If a lender extends student loan credit (cumulatively) for an amount exceeding 50% of the value of the degree, then the debt in excess of the 50% ceiling can be discharged in bankruptcy.

Say tuition at Queens totals $120 thousand for four years.  Say new elementary education teachers earn $28 thousand per year for seven years, totaling $196 thousand.  Half of that is $98 thousand, so the maximum student loan would be $98 thousand.  If a lender grants credit in excess of the $98 thousand, say $120 less $98 being $22 thousand, the $22 thousand could be discharged in bankruptcy, and the rest could not. 

This method places the “caveat emptor” burden on each party to the credit transaction.  It is similar to getting an appraisal on a house in support of a mortgage loan.