If we make college free for example. Would there be a long term issue with potentially the cost being over inflated 10-20 years from now? in my words meaning even though its free, wont the cost keep going up and up every few years? so that taxes will also go up? assuming taxpayers are involved with this.



I thought the issue right now with colleges being expensive is because the amount of money from govt or aid they get for free, which has racking up the charges in the first place.

I am in the boat that colleges are super expensive than they need to be and it seems nobody has or wants to take a deep dive on what to do to lower them, if thats possible

theres about a million ways to lower taxes before we get to colleges. like all the money we give to big business. and the military.

any an educated populace will pay for itself in a lot of ways.

but the people in charge dont want them paying for themselves bc then the money and resources may not flow entirely to them.

+1

Everybody take a screenshot of me agreeing with Victor. It may never happen again.

well if you agree with that then you are pretty much a Marxist

The education and health care are super costly for the return they give already , without the government and allowing the private sector in full strength right ?

You think the government don’t pay for that , yet the US as reach over 27 trillions in debts , hum I wonder why ?

Mind as well the government intervened so that everyone have access .
Imo the cost is totally already ridiculous when you don’t even have universal access ....

The Notion of private sector being more attentive than the government for the well being of its citizen is a bit funny .
Private sector are good for themselves, to make money period .
Not to take care of the well being of it’s costumer or for the greater good for society by accepting less profits .
Utopia .

Money is a token you get when you provide a service/product that society wants, therefore the wealthiest people/companies are the ones that help society the most.

So, advocating for "free" higher education is a sufficient condition for being "pretty much a Marxist?"

n.b I'm not in favour of "free" higher education.

Sorry but I do believe that money ( tokens) can be mis allocated like any other ressource like labor or land .

How do trillions of dollars held in offshore accounts by the corporations and the top 1% help in anyway the American economy or society?
the US have a massif trade deficit ( thx for the US corporations taking Americans jobs and transfer it it to communist China , Chinese appreciate a lot to get US technology for free !)
Massif debts for why ? Taxes cuts and military ?
Not much affordable social services for everyone.
The US can’t even give a positive real rates in bonds for its citizens .
Wealth gap as big as in the 1930 .

Yup the private sector does a great job for the society , very profitable for the Americans , shrug .
I thought a successful economy and society was an economy that thrives for a majority of people (50%+1) and not just the top 10% .
Guess I was wrong.

Ps: maybe when the US reaches 50 trillions in debts you will « start » to change your mind .

The economy isn't a 0-sum game. Poor people are better off than europens kings 300 years ago.
Don't forget that money isn't wealth (there's no intrinsic value in paper notes). Real wealth are the services/products that companies provide. Because we don't barter anymore, society gives companies tokens for their goods/services. A company that has a lot of money (like apple) has done a lot of favours for society.
Also, if you think the system is rigged for the poor/middle class, I agree. But the problem isn't capitalism. The problem is the socialized monetary system in which we live where governments are colluding with banks to debase the currency (trough money printing) thus stealling from the people.

I lived through free higher education in the UK. It was marvelous - not only free but they gave us money to live on unless you're parents were rich, and some other benefits were available if needed. It desperately needed to be extended to more people but instead we threw it all away.

I dont think the UK quite qualified as marxist.

it depends what you define as economy, stock market is certainly a zero sum games and in trades as well

non sense, you have poor people starving and living in 1 room if not in the streets.
lot needs 2 jobs just to get by.

That is why i talk about wealth gap which as of today, is comparable to the 1930.
The 1930's was called the great depression for a reason.

the wealth of a nation is based on services/products that the companies "produce" in the country they manufactured in !!
Big big difference, you do not get wealthy because you can shop cheaply at wall mart....

Jobs creates wealth.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...st-165-million

"While the top 1% of Americans have a combined net worth of $34.2 trillion, the poorest 50% — about 165 million people — hold just $2.08 trillion, or 1.9% of all household wealth."
"the top 10% of Americans hold more than 88% of shares."
"The Fed data also show that the Millennial generation, born between 1981 and 1996, control just 4.6% of U.S. wealth even though they are the largest in the workforce with 72 million members."

If that makes sense to you and is the definition of a thriving economy i just do not know what else to tell you ....
Trickle down economy has never worked!

agree.

its not sufficient. and I would not think you are in favor.

thus why your statement confused me.

electricity and internet exist so companies should be able to **** me in the ass and thats a good thing. I am very smart. jfc **** off. find a hooker or something.

How College Loans Got So Evil

https://www.youtube.com/watch?reload...ature=youtu.be

[Rant Mode On]

If the "facts" presented in this video are significantly true (and more-or-less accurate), I can understand what motivated Nixon (and other 1970's era politicians) to initiate the Student Loan Program. The justification for supporting this new program probably went something along the lines of: "Data from the IRS - and numerous other sources - suggests that college graduates have higher incomes and pay higher taxes once they graduate and get jobs. With more and more of these students gaining their degrees - and good high-paying jobs - thanks to the financial support of their Government; we won't have to take the [politically unpopular] step of voting to raise taxes. The Student Loan Program will pay for itself - it's a 'win-win' for everybody!"

So that's how it started. Government being Government, politicians being politicians, and the "for profit" private sector being what it is; the Student Loan Program is a perfect example of the Law of Unintended Consequences run amok.

Several financial savants have been predicting, for quite some time, that massive loan defaults by students either unable (or unwilling) to pay their debts will be our next financial crisis. There's already talk within the Biden administration about "forgiving" student loan debt and making college "free" for all students who wish to seek higher education.

Normally, as an unrepentant "librul," I would support such measures, but this is a bridge too far. Forty years ago I worked two jobs - seven days a week - while taking night classes at my local university. When I was admitted to the more prestigious "upscale" university - after two years of earning good grades at our local community college - I recall the admissions counselor telling me that I should drop one of my jobs. I looked at her with a facial expression that said something to the effect of: "Are you crazy!? How the hell will I pay for all this - not to mention all my other routine living expenses?" Sensing my alarm she quietly told me: "Mr. ******, you're going to find that here at *** [university] you're going to need your study time." She was right, but I was bound and determined that I would not flunk out - or drop out.

It took me six years to get a 4-year degree, but I did so without a dime of taxpayer assistance. (I didn't spend any of my [limited] "free time" partying or joining a fraternity. My weekends - when I wasn't on one of my jobs - were spent with my head buried in text books while I managed to stay awake downing pots of coffee.) It wasn't easy, especially when I had to go on 12 hour shifts six days a week working in a corrugated box plant. (When that corrugator was running, the temperature inside the plant was anywhere from 100-120 degrees.)

If we taxpayers are going to be forced to pay for college students "free" education, there should be some kind of work requirement imposed on each student who receives such aid. (Students receiving free tuition should be required to work 20 hours a week doing some type of public service work.) Students studying in areas for which there is high demand in the private sector such as engineering, software, and other "high tech" professions might receive a better deal than students who are seeking a degree in art or "Shakespeare studies" or some other field for which there is little market demand. (Why should taxpayers be forced to pay the bill for students pursuing relatively worthless degrees?) I love reading Shakespeare on my own time - and attending performances of Shakespeare's plays - but I shouldn't be forced to subsidize the "education" of an aspiring Shakespearean actor or actress with my taxes. (Nor should you be forced to support those college students who seek such degrees.)

If higher education is something of value, it should not be "given away" for free - it should be earned. Significant "cost control" should be imposed on colleges and universities that accept taxpayer financed student assistance. These institutions have little incentive to keep costs down as they know that, ultimately, the shmucks known as "taxpayers" are footing the bill. A big part of the reason why the cost of higher education has become so outlandish is because the multi-million dollar Presidents and trustees of these institutions are on the gravy train. Some of their exorbitant salaries might be justified, but (I suspect) a lot of them are not.

Maybe it would be a good thing if there is a financial crisis triggered by massive student loan defaults. Currently there is somewhere in the neighborhood of $1.3 to $1.5 TRILLION in student loan debt. If the current morass continues unabated, five years from now student loan debt will be double (or triple) that amount - maybe even quadruple that amount. If all these former students - with their nice shiny degrees - are unable to pay the interest on their debt, it's just a matter of time until they collectively say: "To hell with it. I'm not going to be a 'debt slave' for the rest of my life just because I chose to go to college!" Once enough of these [former] students reach that conclusion, it's the 2008-2010 financial crisis all over gain.

[Rant Mode Off]

I believe it's reached $1.6-1.7 trillion now. But even though that's a very significant amount, I think it's quite a leap to:


LOL, what?

Student debt is said to have doubled over the last 10 years - a rapid increase. But how you get from doubling in 10 years to quadrupling in 5 years...I have no idea.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/22/us-s...-10-years.html

All that said, it's obviously a serious problem, and I think there's some merit to your suggestions of finding a way to "earn it". I don't necessarily agree with all you've said WRT the number of hours, useful versus useless degrees, etc., but I like the idea in principle.

The stock market is certainly not a zero sum game. Those are companies engaged in productive activity(hopefully); some even pay dividends such that you can profit many times your investment without anyone suffering any loss.

The options market *is* a zero sum game; every penny earned is a penny lost by someone else. Contracts aren't engaged in productive activities.

Maybe, but I thought folks in America weren't allowed to default on those loans. You mean like, folks just stop paying even though they can afford to keep paying? If they want to accumulate some wealth one day, afaik, they will have to pay that debt, so I suspect most/all who are paying now want to continue.

The Government should take all the subsidies for higher education and target it at STEM and any other degrees we thing we need ie. not degrees in English Lit or Russian History, etc. Stop giving money to institutions, give it to students(basically). Guaranteeing student loans is a hand-out to the lender; the bank.

Yes student loans are for life. Even if you declare bankruptcy you still owe those loans. You may say what a crazy system but it is the same here in Canada though our education isn't as ridiculously priced as the USA.
How about once you graduate you pay a % of your income for the next 5 or 10 years for your loan?
I have no issue subsidizing a teaching degree or a medical degree but a masters in gender studies or philosophy Gimme a break
Democrats erasing student debt is a bad idea just allow a student to discharge it in bankruptcy

if they are paying it back then how the **** are you subsidizing it?

also, as usual massive lol at whining about "your taxpayer money" going to something you dont approve when its like .01% and almost all of your money goes to massive corporations and war.

I can see incentivizing some fields in various ways. But I'm not so sure it's a good idea to punish others right up front. Plus, you might be surprised how many successful people have phil degree/s hanging around in their back pocket

Poker (in a casino/cardroom) is a negative-sum game.

(I have no idea why I had to say that)

They already do. Grad school in the hard sciences is free plus a 25k a year stipend. In many places that's ~65k subsidy from the government to Universities/students. Those grants come from the NSF, DoD etc so won't be available if you want to study English Lit etc.

It is quite breathtaking so see proponents of capitalism immediately feign ignorance of corporate welfare and also how it fails in such an instance where you can't exactly shop around for prices on an emergency surgery or life saving drug

People have to be demonstrably stupid or demonstrably evil to be OK with the (feature not a bug) concept of capitalism functioning to its fullest extent leads to pay this price or die and also hand my company moar taxpayer dollars because we aren't lazy, you are

But here we are, entrenched in the swine

And I believe in capitalism. The problem is corruption. But I suppose most any system could more or less function well in the absence of corruption

If people want to help those that need medical care and can't afford it, then governmnet doesn't need to get involved. If people don't want it then it's tyrannical for government to impose it on its citizens.
On a no-free-healthcare system nothing stops people from joining together and paying a monthly fee to an organization in exchange for 'free healthcare'. I don't mind the concept of free healthcare as long as you let me opt out and obviously also pay less taxes.

By massively subsidizing the cost in the first place. Thus: