4 ms·

> If the government really wants to get involved in this (which I really wish they didn't) they should build and operate more schools. Make them either at-cost,

> If the government really wants to get involved in this (which I really wish they didn't) they should build and operate more schools. Make them either at-cost, heavily subsidized, or (my preference) entirely free for anyone to attend. Forget income requirements, residency requirements, or anything else. Just make it entirely free to anyone that wants to show up and learn. By financing loans, aren't they already trying to do this? Building and operating more schools just adds more cost. IMO, when you have a functioning government, this is what makes a single payer system (like is often seen in healthcare) so great. If schools can't come to a reasonable price/agreement with the single payer, they don't get paid. And it also leverages a central tenant of Capitalism... there's always someone out there willing to work for less. I know people see this as a bad word, but if we leveraged the best of both Socialism and Capitalism in situations like these we would be better off.

koolba 10y ago
> By financing loans, aren't they already trying to do this? Building and operating more schools just adds more cost. No providing loans increases the demand side of things (more people capable of paying) without controlling costs or increasing supply. Building and operating more schools increases supply which would have a downward pressure on costs as private institutions would then be competing for students against (more) government run schools. > IMO, when you have a functioning government, this is what makes a single payer system (like is often seen in healthcare) so great. The single if schools can't come to a reasonable price/agreement with the single payer, they don't get paid. And it leverages a central tenant of Capitalism... there's always someone out there willing to work for less. Ha! This is first time I've heard someone try to explain single-payer healthcare as an example of capitalism.
- John23832 10y ago
  > Ha! This is first time I've heard someone try to explain single-payer healthcare as an example of capitalism. Well single payer isn't Capitalism, it's Socialism. I wasn't trying to represent it as Capitalism. In (this form) Capitalism, if one buyer and one seller can't agree (where the supply and demand meet), then that's ok because there are (most likely, given a supply/demand graph) other buyers and other sellers. In (this form) Socialism, if the sellers cannot agree with the single payer (or the payer that represents an overwhelming number of the potential buyers) then they don't get paid for services (or are relegated to the much smaller market segment). >> I know people see this as a bad word, but if we leveraged the best of both Socialism and Capitalism in situations like these we would be better off. Not to imply that you were being disingenuous/malicious, but leaving out this part of my post misrepresents what I was trying to say.
  - ende 10y ago
    Single payer systems are neither Capitalist or Socialist. It's just a form of public spending.
    - John23832 10y ago
      Under (pure) Capitalism, there isn't public spending for private individuals. Not to mention government influenced pricing... single payer is pretty far away from laissez-faire and capitalism.
      - ende 10y ago
        Capitalism is simply an economic system based on private ownership of property. Public spending is completely irrelevant. Single payer systems are entirely compatible with capitalism, and is a good example of Social Democratic policy (not to be confused with Socialism, which it is not), which seeks to work within the structure of Capitalism. A Socialist system would be one in which private ownership (of health care) is prohibited; perhaps the closest example among modern democracies being the NHS in the UK.
mtanski 10y ago
> By financing loans, aren't they already trying to do this? Building and operating more schools just adds more cost. You could say they are doing this but in a super inefficient way. With plentiful student loans you end up a lot of actors that capture the money that should be going to eduction (the goal). This includes schools (and their growing administrative departments, lenders, expensive sub-standard housing). You know when college was the most affordable in the US? It's when the states contributed the biggest part. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/fancy-dorms-arent-the-main-reason-tuition-is-skyrocketing/ http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/fancy-dorms-arent-the-ma... I'm personally in favor providing an option at decent post HS education to almost everybody for a modest cost (so people do take it seriously). This shouldn't be just college or generic 4 year university but also vocational training (HVAC, nursing, electrical). If you want to go to a private institution or non public-private partnership, that will always be an option. I also think there's a lot of room for redesigning the 4 year university. I did enjoy some (but not all) of my required electives courses like History of Theater, Early American Literature, History of Africa (you could pick an area), but I don't think it's ethical to shove down a year of classes that may or may not be helpful to people in their life and saddle them with additional debt for that so smugly we can claim they will be more rounded. You can also look at this from a selfish long term angle where we equip people with the tools for the future so they are more self reliant (less reliance on government programs) also offset with higher tax recipes in the long term.

koolba 10y ago

> By financing loans, aren't they already trying to do this? Building and operating more schools just adds more cost. No providing loans increases the demand side of things (more people capable of paying) without controlling costs or increasing supply. Building and operating more schools increases supply which would have a downward pressure on costs as private institutions would then be competing for students against (more) government run schools. > IMO, when you have a functioning government, this is what makes a single payer system (like is often seen in healthcare) so great. The single if schools can't come to a reasonable price/agreement with the single payer, they don't get paid. And it leverages a central tenant of Capitalism... there's always someone out there willing to work for less. Ha! This is first time I've heard someone try to explain single-payer healthcare as an example of capitalism.

John23832 10y ago
> Ha! This is first time I've heard someone try to explain single-payer healthcare as an example of capitalism. Well single payer isn't Capitalism, it's Socialism. I wasn't trying to represent it as Capitalism. In (this form) Capitalism, if one buyer and one seller can't agree (where the supply and demand meet), then that's ok because there are (most likely, given a supply/demand graph) other buyers and other sellers. In (this form) Socialism, if the sellers cannot agree with the single payer (or the payer that represents an overwhelming number of the potential buyers) then they don't get paid for services (or are relegated to the much smaller market segment). >> I know people see this as a bad word, but if we leveraged the best of both Socialism and Capitalism in situations like these we would be better off. Not to imply that you were being disingenuous/malicious, but leaving out this part of my post misrepresents what I was trying to say.
- ende 10y ago
  Single payer systems are neither Capitalist or Socialist. It's just a form of public spending.
  - John23832 10y ago
    Under (pure) Capitalism, there isn't public spending for private individuals. Not to mention government influenced pricing... single payer is pretty far away from laissez-faire and capitalism.
    - ende 10y ago
      Capitalism is simply an economic system based on private ownership of property. Public spending is completely irrelevant. Single payer systems are entirely compatible with capitalism, and is a good example of Social Democratic policy (not to be confused with Socialism, which it is not), which seeks to work within the structure of Capitalism. A Socialist system would be one in which private ownership (of health care) is prohibited; perhaps the closest example among modern democracies being the NHS in the UK.

mtanski 10y ago

> By financing loans, aren't they already trying to do this? Building and operating more schools just adds more cost. You could say they are doing this but in a super inefficient way. With plentiful student loans you end up a lot of actors that capture the money that should be going to eduction (the goal). This includes schools (and their growing administrative departments, lenders, expensive sub-standard housing). You know when college was the most affordable in the US? It's when the states contributed the biggest part. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/fancy-dorms-arent-the-main-reason-tuition-is-skyrocketing/ http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/fancy-dorms-arent-the-ma... I'm personally in favor providing an option at decent post HS education to almost everybody for a modest cost (so people do take it seriously). This shouldn't be just college or generic 4 year university but also vocational training (HVAC, nursing, electrical). If you want to go to a private institution or non public-private partnership, that will always be an option. I also think there's a lot of room for redesigning the 4 year university. I did enjoy some (but not all) of my required electives courses like History of Theater, Early American Literature, History of Africa (you could pick an area), but I don't think it's ethical to shove down a year of classes that may or may not be helpful to people in their life and saddle them with additional debt for that so smugly we can claim they will be more rounded. You can also look at this from a selfish long term angle where we equip people with the tools for the future so they are more self reliant (less reliance on government programs) also offset with higher tax recipes in the long term.