3 ms·

> (In practice, existing government involvement in both of those markets has done nothing but inflate costs dramatically.) here in Germany education is (mostly

by ido 8y ago

> (In practice, existing government involvement in both of those markets has done nothing but inflate costs dramatically.) here in Germany education is (mostly) government funded and for the majority of students studying in public universities is free or very cheap. The American model of just providing backing for student loans is the broken one. When I did my M.Sc. in Austria I paid €350 per semester for another example of publicly funded higher education not making education expensive.

AnthonyMouse 8y ago
> The American model of just providing backing for student loans is the broken one. I would agree with that assessment. Convincing the government to subsidize loan interest for education and housing is one of the nastiest tricks the banks pulled on the American people. But the point is that those markets would be more efficient if the government had left them alone. > When I did my M.Sc. in Austria I paid €350 per semester for another example of publicly funded higher education not making education expensive. That's the out of pocket cost, then how much did it cost in tax dollars on top of that? I assume still less than in the US, because the banks did such a number on the US, but I doubt any better than schools in ordinary markets without that level of crazy.
- ido 8y ago
  But the point is not just the total cost (tax payers & own money) but that shifting this cost to the public means everyone will be able to afford it (including poor kids who currently aren't & just remain "uneducated" instead). The argument is that society as a whole benefits from a better educated/more healthy/etc population so even tho it will cost you some tax money in the greater scheme of things as a whole we will benefit. If this means e.g. a 20% premium on the cost of education or healthcare I'd be willing to accept that. If it's 10x the cost that's obviously a different story. But we don't actually know the scale of the effect.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

by ido 8y ago

AnthonyMouse 8y ago

> The American model of just providing backing for student loans is the broken one. I would agree with that assessment. Convincing the government to subsidize loan interest for education and housing is one of the nastiest tricks the banks pulled on the American people. But the point is that those markets would be more efficient if the government had left them alone. > When I did my M.Sc. in Austria I paid €350 per semester for another example of publicly funded higher education not making education expensive. That's the out of pocket cost, then how much did it cost in tax dollars on top of that? I assume still less than in the US, because the banks did such a number on the US, but I doubt any better than schools in ordinary markets without that level of crazy.

ido 8y ago
But the point is not just the total cost (tax payers & own money) but that shifting this cost to the public means everyone will be able to afford it (including poor kids who currently aren't & just remain "uneducated" instead). The argument is that society as a whole benefits from a better educated/more healthy/etc population so even tho it will cost you some tax money in the greater scheme of things as a whole we will benefit. If this means e.g. a 20% premium on the cost of education or healthcare I'd be willing to accept that. If it's 10x the cost that's obviously a different story. But we don't actually know the scale of the effect.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]