4 ms·
The government has incentives to invest in things that boost its own economy. A government that pays for 10 engineers will likely get a bigger return that one t
by fiblye 6y ago
The government has incentives to invest in things that boost its own economy. A government that pays for 10 engineers will likely get a bigger return that one that pays for 10 art history majors.
Paying for something that has little industrial use and doesn't boost GDP numbers would actually be idiotic and anti-market.
- triceratops 6y agoIf a degree has industrial use, why doesn't industry pay for it? Why are taxpayers pulling out their checkbook?
- fiblye 6y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidy Governments often pump money into things seen as having long term benefits for a country. Examples: investing in agricultural independence, roads, phone networks. An entirely free market would still have these. Government investment gives it an initial push to develop faster. Australia decided they have some fields they should prioritize for national development. The idea of people working in one industry or one company for life is long gone, so expecting a company to subsidize someone's education just isn't happening unless they're already in the company. Furthermore, an entirely free market approach to art majors would probably have even fewer art majors. If governments didn't subsidize degrees or offer loans or funding or anything of the sort, nobody but the elite would be studying art history at the academic level at all. So the government either remains completely neutral and funds things equally, it funds nothing at all, or it funds according to national needs. Some countries choose #1 or #2. Australia chose #3.