Writing the Annals of Civilization

Since I have become aware of human history, I have always wondered what to expect during my lifetime. Granted, the recent surge of activism arising in the U.S. is hardly worth noting in a history textbook, I do expect something significant to happen in the coming years that will add some pages to the annals of civilization.
The economic tides are shifting across the globe- China, which 20 years ago was still considered well below "developing", seems to be tightening its economic grip on the West, which can't seem to get its act together.
Italy is electing an entirely new government, and the IMF's European chief resigned very recently. Despite the economic difficulties, the corporations of the United States still -own- everything in terms of business stratification, but more labor is being exported each year. More producing ability is being exported each year. The economy of the United States is so heavily dependent on that of foreign economies (either in the form of subsidiaries or labor), but nobody seems to mind. Historically, every revolution has fallen in the favor of the producers, and against the financiers (owners, aristocrats, etc.), and apparently, they think they have it right this time as well. Nobody is doing much about it.

The American aristocracy seems to have little intention of improving the state of education of its population; after all, that would threaten their superiority, no?
The companies hire producers, accepting the notion that these producers are now dependent on said companies for their wages. Is this the case? If profit is maximized by investing more resources into a single producer, then who is the dependent- he who sells, or he who produces? Neither- it is he who buys without producing. That's where the United States is right now, from the households who are sold mediocre (but pretty!) computers (yes, this is a shot at Macs) to the financiers who move massive sums of money between producers. Yes, the ultra-rich CEOs of Goldman Sachs and AIG can raise and demolish factories and towns with the money they move, but the producers at the bottom of the proverbial socioeconomic ladder seem to be more forgotten with each passing year.
The U.S. has moved from producing to managing production for its own population (as have many European nations). So far, this has served the country very well, and I think it's a fantastic step in the direction of maintaining global economic supremacy... except for the next step, which is using that money to MAINTAIN supremacy. If supremacy lies in the financiers, then it is far too fickle. This is why:
If forced to choose between the producers and the consumers, where do the financiers turn? The obvious answer is the resources. Financial resources lie in production and consumption. The U.S. is exporting its production capacity. Connecting the dots, yet?

And above all of this, the government doesn't seem to care much about education. Funny how that works, since as the information age grows, the country with the most people who are adept at manipulating this information (intelligent people?) will have a great advantage... yet education seems to be getting cut at every hardship the budget encounters...

...which brings me to the current surge of activism with which I've been instilled.

As a student of UC Davis, I should expect no less from the strongly progressive sentiments that surround me, but the behavior of the UC Administration certainly eludes me. The California State Legislature has cut more funding to the U.C., which has resulted in staff layoffs, cutting classes, and reduced financial aid across the board.
What has the UC Administration (regents) done about this? They've moved money around to try to make things work, allegedly... which is important. Good.
Have they publicly appealed to the California State Legislature? No.
Have they launched any campaign against the funding cuts? No.
Have they at least EVENED OUT the money a little to mitigate the damage done? THEY GAVE THEMSELVES RAISES. I don't type in all caps very often, but I consider this justified.
Have they made any significant action to even ATTEMPT to provide their university students or staff with a better education or work environment? I see none (granted this may be an environmental bias, I have searched and found nothing).

This is simply another instance of misplaced responsibility as a result of a flawed system. The regents may have been intellectual academic philanthropists when the UC was given autonomy by the California State Legislature, but this is no longer the case. Their primary responsibility must be to the students and staff of the UC, and this clearly is not the case. Something must be done about this.

People should always be expected to act in their own best interests.