CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Economic Challenge Between Bohemian and Thewayitis
Comments posted by all welcome. This is an economic debate between Bohemian & Thewayits.
A difference of an opinion inspired this.
"One educated idiot seems to be drawn to another. This country has failed to hire the best managers, CEO's, vice presidents, etc. and so the end result is that they look for people as incompetent as they are. These people fear being replaced and have searched high and low for those that don't have a chance in hell of replacing them. Why do think companies keep closing their doors and relocating? One thing this does is it gets rid of management. What they fail to do, is go far enough up the chain and get rid of those that instrument this line of thinking in the first place. Its like being victorious in a revolution and keeping the government." Thewayitis
"No, you're absolutely right. Businesses going bankrupt is because there are too many people with degrees and it has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that we are going through a recession caused by the housing market crash. If only less business leaders had degrees this wouldn't be happening. Your understanding of economics is clearly superior to mine. I will now hang my head in shame and dismay." Bohemian
Starting from my childhood, I've see the pure idiocy and destruction that corporatism causes. People with true power exploiting it for the purpose of literally making other people miserable, not for the efficiency benefit of the workers. What is that but not foolishness?
Perhaps it takes a good mathematical mind to run a corporation, or even manage a single establishment of a large corporation, but it takes a true fool to abuse his workers to the point that they decide to form a Union.
How many businesses do you own? That's what I thought. I own two. I speak from experience. Where do you speak from? My guess is Goggle, this is where you get everything else.
You have shown several times that you have no clue how the world works. There is a vast difference in knowing how the world works and being part of military intelligence (an oxymoron of course).
How big business works is actually quite similar to how the military works (or doesn't). One gets orders from someplace like Washington D.C. and every one else follows. They are not on present location and deem what is policy from a distant land. When all hell breaks loose, they wonder why. No big secret as why failure; Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan occurs. Only a mystery when victory is obtained.
One does not need to own a business to understand economics and many people who own businesses still don't. You being one of them.
To even imply that our current recession is caused by too many business leaders possessing degrees, suggests that you haven't the slightest clue how economics work.
When large corporations fail, perhaps the biggest cause is unsavory (i.e. unethical) business practices. Sub-Prime mortgages being a recent example of that.
Yes you do need to own a business to fully understand economics, one cannot learn what is all involved from a text book.
I agree their are a few that don't understand economics, but they are short lived as business people.
As far as what caused this recession; it is not the housing market, that is the end result. This recession started when the World Trade Centers fell, the terrorist succeeded in their objective. Immediately after they fell my liability insurance went from $825.00 a quarter to $2600.00 a quarter. A letter put out by the insurance company said that the reason the premiums jumped was to cover the claims from the 9/11 disaster. Even though it was made public that American insurance companies didn't really shell out huge amounts of money, companies such as Lloyd's of London paid out way more. The next thing that happened is Pharmaceutical companies joined in on the reaming, they raised their prices. The did this strictly because they could and so many started getting their medicine from Canada. The next thing that happened is they got Congress to make it illegal to by medicine from Canada. Along this time you had Enron cheating people and cooking the books, people lost their savings, investments, etc. Bush ran for re-election and some one had to buy this election the same as the last one. Guess who flipped the bill? Bush is an oil man. The oil companies bought two elections and now needed repayment, prices of fuel sky rocketed after the election, big surprise. Madoff comes along and with the rich doing no wrong by Republican standards, isn't watched. The rich can do no wrong. And you say the houses market started this. You haven't a clue how the world works.
Yes you do need to own a business to fully understand economics, one cannot learn what is all involved from a text book.
Right, and how many businesses did Adam Smith (The father of Economics) own?
No, I'll wait.....
...
...
As far as what caused this recession; it is not the housing market, that is the end result. This recession started when the World Trade Centers fell, the terrorist succeeded in their objective.
AHahaha!!
Did you seriously just blame the recession on terrorists!? Ahahahaha!! I think this "challenge" was over before it ever began.
Despite what you may think the recession was not caused by terrorists, the recession was caused by the failure of the U.S. government and by the irresponsibility of hedge fund companies, banks, investment firms and the inability of credit ratings agencies to do their job.
The government made credit easy, this led to people borrowing more than they could pay back combined with predatory leading, which lead to massive nation-wide foreclosures, which led to too many houses and not enough buyers, this caused banks to go into panic mode trying to sell off their bad investments and of course nobody wanted to buy, investors stopped investing in real estate because nobody was buying, construction companies stopped building houses because of falling demand, banks went belly up because they didn't get their money back from all of the foreclosed houses due to the plummeting housing prices, and hedge funds were up to their eyeballs in toxic credit. This was all exacerbated by the excessive leveraging that preceded this all. It was the credit crisis and housing market crash that sunk the U.S. economy, had nothing to do with the trade center attacks. We did this to ourselves.
As it turns out your anti-Book-learnin' attitude isn't really helping you.
Right, and how many businesses did Adam Smith (The father of Economics) own?
No, I'll wait.....
Wrong, Richard Cantillon is the founding father of economics, and Carl Menger is the founding father of Austrian Economics who challenged classical economists.
Adam Smith is much more well known and for good reason, his book The Wealth of Nations was considered by many to be the Bible of Economics, and was the dominant economic thought for nearly a century. He pioneered free-market capitalism and was the first to propose the Invisible Hand. There is no question over who was the more influential figure.
And this is coming from someone who isn't exactly the biggest advocate of laissez-Passer/Faire capitalism, but I give credit where credit is due. The larger point here is that you don't have to own a business to understand economics contrary to what Thewayitis claims.
Second, The honor of being called the "father of modern economics" belongs, then, not to its usual recipient, Adam Smith, but to a gallicized Irish merchant, banker, and adventurer who wrote the first treatise on economics more than four decades before the publication of the Wealth of Nations. Cantillon
Third, I have never read Wealth of Nations, and he didn't pioneer free markets, it was free trade. trade
Fourth, Laissez-faire is not English, it is French for let do, and it was popularized by Vincent de Gournay, a French intendant of commerce in the 1750s.
Even though Cantillon was earlier than than Smith, he was nowhere near as influential, and some of Cantillon's ideas derived from earlier authors, just as some of Adam Smith's ideas derived from earlier authors. You yourself even admit that Adam Smith is the usual recipient of the title "Father of economics".
SIDE NOTE: I never said Smith popularized the phrase 'Laissez faire' merely that I wasn't a big advocate.
And whether Smith or Cantillon was the true father of economics is not important to the overall debate between myself and Thewayitis. He challenged me to a debate over economics and made some pretty ridiculous claims (terrorists caused the recession. Ha!).
Under your previous assertion, Aristotle would be the first economist, but as Joseph Schumpeter called Cantillon's treatise "the first systematic presentation of the field of economics." William Stanley Jevons, one of the founders of neoclassical economics, called the book the "cradle of political economy."
It has everything to do with The Trade Center attacks. If people had the money to pay back even the most ridiculous loans, there won't be a problem. What happened is what they were earning bought less, therefore they didn't have enough money to keep up with the their home loans.
In the seventies interest rates were between 18% and 21% for businesses and business thrived. This is why the economy was good, it is because the banks would loan anybody money at this rate. What has happened with low interest rates, bank are more selective who they loan money to. The growth rate slows to a crawl when money is rare, it multiplies when there is free money. Free money, means easy to obtain. Dry up the money supply and loans fail. This isn't rocket science.
It has everything to do with The Trade Center attacks.
No, no it doesn't. And you won't find any credible economist that will argue that the recession was caused by 9/11. It simply wasn't, and it's a pretty ridiculous claim.
If people had the money to pay back even the most ridiculous loans, there won't be a problem.
If people had the money....please stop, I can already tell you don't know what you're talking about. You're supposing something that is very much contrary to fact. People didn't have the money because predatory lending entails specifically targeting those who don't have the money. The Interest rates had nothing to do with 9/11, and everything to do with the Federal Reserve. I've already explained the role of easy credit in the Credit Crisis, in my previous post.
This isn't rocket science.
Is this some kind of rhetorical device, to pretend as if you understand the subject matter?
Nobody can create what already exists, notable people can only write or lecture about things that are already in progress. Business practices have been around since the beginning of man, without labels attached to them. People have always traded, boughten, bartered, etc. without some one telling them what have done.
"It was caused by the Y2K scare, which created a boom and subsequent bust in Internet businesses. It was aggravated by the 9/11 attack. The economy contracted in two quarters: Q1 -1.3% (-.5%) and Q3 -1.1% (-1.4%). Unemployment reached 5.7% during the recession, but rose even further to 6% in June 2003. This often happens in recessions, as unemployment is a lagging indicator. Most employers wait until they are sure the economy is back on its feet again before hiring permanent employees."
Did you see that heading, above where you copied and pasted this from? The heading that said "2001 Recession"? Yeah, that's the wrong recession, keep looking a little further up on the page where it says "2008-2009 Recession" Now look just below that where it says:
"The recession was caused by the Subprime Mortgage Crisis, which then led to a global banking credit crisis."
Now go back to Every previous post I have made in this debate where I state in no uncertain terms that this recession was caused by Subprime Mortgages. I even posted a video that explains it in laymen terms, which I then asked you to watch. It's funny how even your own sources agree with me. That's what happens when you actually research something.
This leads me to my next point, you either don't know how to operate a web page, or you intentionally misrepresented it and hoped that I wouldn't check your source (NOTE: I always do).
Of course you always check the web pages, you have no knowledge of your own.
I do enjoy wasting your time and making you jump through hoops. Google loves you.
What is extremely funny is with all your self proclaimed wisdom, never have you argued that we are not in a recession. All the google searches will tell you, that the recession is over and that we are merely dealing with the consequences of the recession.
The evidence is that I lived it and not googled it.
"That's the problem. Anecdotal evidence is easily the weakest form of evidence and the most unreliable. Bigfoot sightings, and alien abductions are supported solely by anecdotal evidence. A memory is just as biased as the person holding the memory. Your refusal to do any actual research is characteristic of anti-intellectualism. If you are really interested in understanding our current recession, watch this video:" Bohemian
A genius at work one must admire some one that thinks he an economist and still thinks we are in a recession, dispite what all other economist say. SEE LINK
The issue comes from government being influential enough to keep the largest businesses in power and the people dependent on those large businesses. It's easy to solve an economic catastrophe when the solution is to just give billions of dollars to a few banks and automobile corporations. The same couldn't be said for if the banks were unregulated and not even a part of government.
Irresponsible incentives put fourth by the government to encourage mismanagement of the people's moneys is a major cause of the recession. Government should not be giving business any kind of edge, nor should it impede any edge they may have.
As well, you entire debate description is incoherent. What the fuck are you two talking about?
This isn't so much a debate over Keynesian or Austrian economics. To put it in context this debate arose in another debate in which Thewayitis claimed that employers choosing applicants with degrees over those without, was a form of discrimination. He then proceeded to blame a system that chooses degree-holders over non-degree-holders, as being responsible for the number of businesses that are currently failing.
... so basically hiring based on qualification is discrimination. Or being qualified for a job inherently leads to a poorer performance whereas presumably being uqualified would lead more often to a better performance in any given position.
Ah, that sounds like a position he would take.
I wonder which drugs/ brain diseases would lead one's thoughts in that directions.
Just how does a boughten piece of paper make one qualified for anything?
“Challenge conventional wisdom and never accept the truth of something merely because everyone else views it as obvious.” Fredrich Haller Einstein’s first employer
“Most of the learning in use, is of no great use." Ben Franklin
"Information is not knowledge." Albert Einstein
"The only source of knowledge is experience." Albert Einstein
"The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education." Albert Einstein
“Nothing in the world can take the place of Persistence. Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent. The slogan 'Press On' has solved and always will solve the problems of the human race.” Calvin Coolidge
"A man who has never gone to school may steal from a freight car; but if he has a university education, he may steal the whole railroad." Theodore Roosevelt
“Blind respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.” Einstein
“A poor man wise is like a sacred book that’s never read. To himself he lives, to all others seems died. This age thinks more of a gilded fool, than a thread bare saint in wisdom’s school.” Thomas Dekker
You said you know more about economics, I said prove it. This debate is open for all discussions on economics, the cause, the effect, what's wrong, etc.
In the Great Depression there was a run on banks; history has shown us that whether we like it or not, they must remain in tack. This means bailing them out. Businesses are supposed to do what's good for the business, not what's good for its' board of directors. The intentions of the government were honorable, to bad the banks didn't reciprocate this.
As far as the car companies go, they have been bailed out before. Chrysler Corporation got a huge loan to keep its' doors open in 1979. See link.
What started this recession was the fall of the World Trade Centers. I posted these events on the other side of this debate.
When insurance rates jump to to almost 4 times as much as they were overnight, what happens to the working capital one has? They have less. Everybody but you knows that it takes money to pay bills, now you have less money to spend elsewhere. Let me put this in term that even you can understand. If one makes a certain amount of money, say 40,000 dollars. One pays all expenses (electric, food, clothing, insurance, house payment, etc) and now their expenses increase drastically, what do you think happens? They default on something.
For businesses the same thing happened, x amount of gross income and not enough net income to pay everybody. This happened way before the housing market crashed. Most small businesses have been running in the red for 8 to 10 years now. Many have closed their doors and cut their losses. Many are only attempting to hang on until things change.
Laugh all you want to, but being too dumb to understand business is far from being funny.
A temporary rise in insurance rates in New York City due to terrorism , is incredibly unlikely to have caused the rapid growth of Housing Foreclosure rates Nation-wide, nearly Seven years later. For the simple fact that most residential homes don't have insurance against terrorist attacks. The two are completely unrelated.
If you have some evidence to support your claim I would like to see it, but I'm not going to hold my breathe. To insist that 9/11 caused the Recession is a wildly unsubstantiated claim.
The increase in insurance was permanent, it has never gone down any.
To say that 9/11 didn't effect the economy is completely absurd, what does the Iraq and Afghanistan war cost. The only reason we engaged these wars was a direct result of 9/11. If that money wasn't spent overseas and spent in USA, would we be in a recession?
Would you agree with follow statement taken from the Wall street Journal,
"What caused the recession? The problem started in the United States with the so-called Subprime Mortgage Crisis. The crisis was triggered by the rise in mortgage delinquencies leading to foreclosure of houses and ultimately a credit crunch leading to a freeze in liquidity."
What do think caused these delinquencies? I'll tell you, it was the lack of money to pay. Why did they have shortage of money, because everything went up in price but their paycheck. What caused the increase in consumer products, many things and one of them is 9/11.
By the way I down-voted your posting because it wasn't based on anything but your opinion. The insurance rates were permanent and have even increased slightly more since 9/11
Your article says that rates came down and flatted out 5 years after 9/11 happened, that left plenty of time for one to fall behind in their mortgages payments as a result of higher insurance cost. You call 5 years temporary?
This article is basically about property liability insurance and not operation liability insurance, mentioning other insurances with just one sentence, "The rate increases were across-the-board, covering everything from general liability to directors and officers (D&O;) to fidelity coverage." I'm glad everyone else received some relief, too little too late.
You didn't say anything about all that money spent fighting Al qaida. If only terrorist wouldn't have crashed planes, this money would have been used at home, not used at all, and never borrowed in the first place. Dispute this.
Your article says that rates came down and flatted out 5 years after 9/11 happened, that left plenty of time for one to fall behind in their mortgages payments as a result of higher insurance cost.
Right, and I will address this as soon as you admit that you were wrong about prices increases being permanent.
This article is basically about property liability insurance and not operation liability insurance
And? What is your point?
You didn't say anything about all that money spent fighting Al qaida.
One thing at a time, my friend. First we must resolve the question of insurance increases. It doesn't do you any good to go on about how insurance increase caused the recession only to abandon that argument when it begins to crumble and to move on to another.
If I hadn't lost my house due to higher insurance rates, I might have known they leveled off for property owners. Forced to live in a rented warehouse in downtown Detroit continuing my business, I am only aware of what happened to those premiums I still pay. They have remained high, unchanged by any political policy or acts within the insurance companies themselves.
I clearly stated that 9/11 caused the recession, so all actions as a result of this are included. This includes insurance rates, wars, etc. I have not changed my position, have you?
I wasn't wrong about premiums being permanently high, just uninformed.
This has to be one of my favorite responses.
"I wasn't wrong, just uninformed" hahaha, no bud, that means you're wrong. Not being informed of your incorrectness doesn't make it any less incorrect.
Big deal; what home owners were left, they gave them a little break.
Except The housing crash didn't happen until 2008. Not to mention, insurance rates were localized. All evidence points towards Subprime mortgages as the cause of the Housing market crash. Hell, you didn't even know anything about the housing market crash until I mentioned it. You have offered nothing but conjecture.
Evidence that Sub-Prime Mortgages caused Housing Market Crash:
The evidence is that I lived it and not googled it.
Since you claim to be in the military and what you say doesn't contradict that, I'm safe to assume that the military has no intelligence.
If I posted a web-site that says being shot doesn't hurt; Does that make it so?
Since you like google so much google the link below it plainly states this;
"Many factors contribute to an economy's fall into a recession, but the major cause is inflation. Inflation refers to a general rise in the prices of goods and services over a period of time."
The evidence is that I lived it and not googled it.
That's the problem. Anecdotal evidence is easily the weakest form of evidence and the most unreliable. Bigfoot sightings, and alien abductions are supported solely by anecdotal evidence. A memory is just as biased as the person holding the memory.
Your refusal to do any actual research is characteristic of anti-intellectualism. If you are really interested in understanding our current recession, watch this video:
Google searches are the weakest form of evidence. The internet contains everything except facts. The Internet is nothing more than a propaganda machine. Once you have learned this, there might be hope for you.
As I have explained several times and presented proof that information is not knowledge, the only source of knowledge is experience. Hence you have no knowledge of anything, because google is your only vice.
You can use your links the same way JC Penny catalogs were used in the outhouse. On second thought JC Penny catalogs actually were useful.
Browser searches aren't evidence, they are merely a way to attain evidence. The evidence lay in the source. If you have good sources that are pertinent to the topic, then you have good evidence. Source reliability can very quite significantly. Credible and reputable sources such as The Gallup poll, or Live Science make better evidence than say the personal blog of John Doe or some Partisan agenda Websites. So you have to be able to distinguish good sources from bad sources.
The internet is the single largest collection of human knowledge, and if you know how to utilize it effectively then it can be a very powerful informational tool. Collective knowledge is greater than Individual knowledge. If you find yourself constantly refuted by credible web sources, the problem isn't the internet, the problem is you. It's okay to have beliefs, and opinions, but you need to be able to re-examine and to revise those beliefs when confronted with new evidence. You should not fall into the trap of maintaining comfortable beliefs when compelling contrary evidence is presented, it is intellectual laziness and the end of intellectual pursuit.
Your right searches aren't evidence, they are mostly BS. The Internet is a propaganda machine, much like the lobbyist in Washington. Who ever spends the most money gets heard the most. End of story.
I do not have singular or individual knowledge since everything learned was taught by some one else. My knowledge is acquired by being in the world and being a part of it. You should leave the padded room, laptop, and see what's outside once in a while.
Your right searches aren't evidence, they are mostly BS. The Internet is a propaganda machine
No, you're right. The Internet has a clear Anti-Things-Thewayitis-Believes bias to it. Pay no attention to all those so-called scientific studies, surveys, Facts, and Expert opinions. Whatever it is that you believe the Internet is prepared to support the exact opposite, because it kind of works that way.
It is obviously the entirety of the Internet that is wrong, and not you.
My knowledge is acquired by being in the world and being a part of it. You should leave the padded room, laptop, and see what's outside once in a while.
Trust me bud, I've been around the block once or twice. And by 'Block' I mean the Atlantic.
I never said all the Internet is wrong, just that there is plenty of BS out there.
“Blind respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.” Einstein
Big deal you have been around the Atlantic. Is this suppose to make every one tremble and bow down before you? It is too bad the concrete blocks weren't attached properly.
Science is based on observation and observation is where all my knowledge comes from. Just like my knowledge that you are nothing but a dumb ass comes from the evidence that you search google for everything, hence you have no knowledge. If you had any knowledge you would not have to depend on every one else for all the answers.
If don't believe observations to be true, why do think others observations are true.
sci·ence (sns)
n.
1.
a. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
Science is based on observation and observation is where all my knowledge comes from.
No, A Scientific Observation is data which is recorded using scientific instruments and then confirmed by repeated observations. You remembering that you saw something a half-decade ago is in no way equivalent to a scientific observation.
Just like my knowledge that you are nothing but a dumb ass
Yes, of course, If our current exchange is evidence of anything it is clearly I that is the bigger dumbass (one word).
^CAUTION: Removal of excessively caked on sarcasm requires goggles and chisel.
comes from the evidence that you search google for everything
What is idiotic, moronic even is not the fact that you are a low-information debater, it's that you have a world of information available to you, An information network so vast that the greatest thinkers from centuries ago could have scarcely conceived of it which is literally at your fingertips and yet you refuse to use it and you criticize others who do. That is is the absolute epitome of a dumbass (still one word).
If you had any knowledge you would not have to depend on every one else for all the answers.
And what knowledge have you gained by refusing to accept that other people may know better than yourself? I am more knowledgeable than you, because I have accepted that other people are more knowledgeable than myself, and I have sought to become a student to those people and to learn as much as I can from them. You have sought only to be a student to yourself, and unfortunately for you, your teacher cannot teach. Closing off your ears and eyes to the knowledge of the world has only one result: willful ignorance.
We hired the smartest businessmen in the world! THAT IS THE PROBLEM! Those clever bastards made billions off the economic crisis. The initially amassed fortunes by screwing the long-term picture for short term gains, then they manipulated the derivatives market and got away with not only huge gains, but, INCREDIBLY, giant compensations as well!
Greed. Greed. And more greed. Our mistake was bring people smart enough to fuel their greed.
This is clearly a strawman. I never said the educated can do no harm, the educated are just as fallible as everybody else, what I dispute is:
1) That employers choosing those with degrees over those without is a form of discrimination.
2) That should you replace every business leader with someone who never expanded their formal education beyond Secondary School that this would somehow decrease the number of businesses going bankrupt.
In fact I would argue very strongly that greed and taking short term-benefit over long-term stability can lead to financial disaster. I would also argue that Certain CEOs buying off their friends in Government leads to corruption and a volatile market climate.
"This country has failed to hire the best managers, CEO's, vice presidents, etc. and so the end result is that they look for people as incompetent as they are."
This is the exact opposite of what I just stated.
And Bohemian said this:
"I would argue very strongly that greed and taking short term-benefit over long-term stability can lead to financial disaster."
This is almost identical to what I previously stated. I'm with Bohemian on this one.
So you believe that the same people that have wrecked the country are the same ones that will rescue it?
Colleges and universities have failed to do anything but teach greed and the lack of ethics.
"A man who has never gone to school may steal from a freight car; but if he has a university education, he may steal the whole railroad." Theodore Roosevelt
"To educate a man in mind and not in morals is to educate a menace to society." Theodore Roosevelt
"The things that will destroy America are prosperity-at-any-price, peace-at-any-price, safety-first instead of duty-first, the love of soft living, and the get-rich-quick theory of life." Theodore Roosevelt
"Try not to become a man of success, but rather try to become a man of value."
Who would you like to see running companies if not college grads?
“Experience has shown, and a true philosophy will always show, that a vast, perhaps the larger portion of the truth arises from the seemingly irrelevant” ~ Edgar Allan Poe
I have stated that the educated is wrecking the country and somehow you want credit for stating that they have gotten rich, no kidding. This is fact and not even debatable.
When Bohemian said this he was being sarcastic, "If only less business leaders had degrees this wouldn't be happening." He believes that a diploma makes one a superior being.
