Column on Geithner presents bad arguments

Would someone please take the pen out of Antoinette Russell’s hand? Her article about chivalry has gotten enough attention, and for the most part, gotten what it deserved. But her article about Timothy Geithner showed her incompetence about current events. She raises the serious point that Geithner did not pay $34,000 in taxes, but she fails to mention that he paid it back with interest –something she missed, perhaps, because of the tangled mess known as the IRS — but that’s another topic.

The real problems come when she talks about Geithner’s positions on bailouts. If you quote CNBC saying that Lehman Brothers was “the largest causality of the global credit crisis,” as they became the “largest investment bank to collapse since 1990,” would it make sense to say that his support for a bailout was a bad thing (if you believe CNBC)? No, of course not. So then, perhaps, you should point out he was the president of the NY Fed when Lehman Brothers failed instead of pointing to his reported reluctance to see Lehman fall. But no, Ms. Russell doesn’t make that connection, she makes a bumbling argument that tax dollars used to “help finance more failing businesses” distracts from the main purpose of taxes putting money in tax payers’ pockets.

I was, in fact, wondering why I had to pay any taxes. I’m glad we have such competent writers working at the Technician to inform us of these things. I’m not trying to argue that Geithner is or isn’t the man for the job or that government bailouts have or haven’t been effective. There are certainly valid and interesting supporting and opposing arguments for these, but I only wanted to point out that Ms. Russell doesn’t know what she’s talking about. And it doesn’t take an MBA to see that.

Jacob Burgdorf

junior, economics

Keep up good work with Daily Tar Hell

Just wanted to say thank you to all of the Technician staff for their efforts with the Daily Tar Hell.  Please continue this tradition for many years to come.

Will Heath

senior, industrial engineering

Bookstore benefits students

In response to Alex Blalock’s letter, I would like to clarify a few issues.  The quote from the article said it is “the primary duty of the University to aid its students,” right?  Well, the NCSU Bookstore (the main store, the North Campus shop and the Centennial store) is doing what it can.  First off, the bookstore is run off a budget that is separate from the University.  The bookstore makes all it’s own money, yet it is still a non-profit, who gives all of its “profits” back to the University to redistribute to students as scholarship.  The textbooks sold at the NCSU Bookstore are sold at a price that purely covers the cost of overhead — running the store.  It only marks up its books by 20 percent, which is the cheapest campus bookstore in the state.  Since the bookstore decided to only charge purely overhead, it has save students $2.7 million.  Also, buyback prices are something that the bookstore has no control over.  They are nationally set, and thus we are under the rules determined by those above the University.

The letter also asks why can’t we rent books.  Well, the inventory needed to carry the inventory for every class for every student would overfill the entire bookstore, including the merchandise portion upstairs.  The bookstore also can’t rent the books due to the high concentration on the STEM fields.  These fields are still actively being studied and new findings are being discovered, thus there are new books and new editions so frequently, that it is not economically feasible for the bookstore to provide this.  If you still feel the need to rent books (which usually cost between 1/3-1/2 of the cost of the book anyway), there are private vendors such as Campusbuddy.com and Chegg.com.

Trisha Gooding

junior, zoology

Real UNC fans appalled at defacing of Yow memorial

I am a UNC-Chapel Hill student and fan. When I heard about the defacing of Kay Yow’s memorial, I was absolutely appalled and saddened.Yow was an inspiration and role model for all of us, not just those associated with N.C. State.

The reason I’m writing is because we’ve been hit with a barrage of insults and accusations blaming us for defacing the mural. If a UNC student or fan is responsible, then they are not a true Tar Heel at all, and I am deeply sorry. But, please remember that if this is so, it absolutely does not reflect the views of Carolina as a whole, and to label us as such would just be wrong. People on our campus have mourned her, too, and the actions of one person who may or may not be associated with UNC does not change that. All I’m asking is that this doesn’t become a petty rivalry where we become the scapegoat without proof. I’m sure you would want the same in a similar situation.

Rest in peace, coach.

Caroline Troullis

senior, public relations, UNC-Chapel Hill