No you just need to shift tax cuts for the rich into funding for public colleges. If you ever noticed, places like Florida give out $4.2 billion tax cuts for rich people while cutting $4.3 billion in public spending.
If it were reversed, you would be massively funding education without changing taxes on most people.
Supply and demand dude. EVERYONE is going to college and there are only so many spots they can fill up. So every year just raise that tuition a bit higher like the boiling frog.
Uh no, the percent of the population that's college educated has actually stagnated for decades the reason why college spending is going up is because of privatization since most people go to public schools.
If all aid was cut, it won't stop cutting state funding for public colleges.
Because they're being privatized...like this isn't rocket science. For years states have been cutting funding for public colleges so they offset it with higher tuition and shift the cost to students.
With regards to Paul if that was your movement you wouldn't be trying to get Paul elected as your main goal, like the anti-apartheid movement wasn't trying to get Nelson Mandela elected in 1980.
@AndroidPolitician Funding was going up for education for a very long time until recently. Tuition was going up the whole time. Ron Paul is a CLOSE second for republican nomination. Has just as much campaign funding as any other candidate. The Fed has control over the banks reserve accounts, not only interest rates, and can add money. The polls you're referring to contradict with other polls. I agree with everyone else responding. You're simply wrong. And you make shit up.
@AndroidPolitician If people couldn't get cheap (read: low interest) student loans and had to pay out of pocket a lot of people would not go to college. No customers = no business and as we know education is a HUGE industry.
State funding is a cop out. Socrates could kick nearly any modern college professor's ass when it comes to dispensing knowledge and he taught on a rock and dirt.
A lot of colleges remind me of federal government spending, with their big land/building buys.
Tuitions are a symptom of privatizing public schools and shifting the cost to students not the cause. Eliminating them won't stop the process of privatization and will only make it more expensive.
Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Syria have risen up against their corrupt governments. In America you had the Occupy protest and you made fun of them and let them be arrested. You had a real chance to change things and you blew it America. This proves that Americans are nothing but pussies and you will roll over whenever the rich tell you to. You keep bitching about government when greed is your real problem.
The stupid Liberal said the most Cost effective colleges are Military Acadimies, what a rediculous statement, he blew his whole case right there!!! Nothing the military does is even close to cost effective. And when the government hands outs student loans to anyone that asks for them, then ofcourse the colleges are going to raise there tutitions. Basic economics.
Serious question, lets say Ron Paul wins and signs an act executive order ending all the wars and legalizing weed but Congress overrides it. What then?
You do realize getting one person into power isn't going to make a difference. It's the system that's doing all the decisions not bad people in government.
1. Exec orders can't be used to legislate, Ron Paul knows this and wouldn't use them to legislate.
2. As commander-in-chief, the President can order his generals and personnel to do whatever he wants. If he orders them to return home on a 6 month timetable, that's what they'll do.
3. I agree, on many issues he would need the support of congress. But if RP were elected, that'd be the sign that voters actually do want more personal liberty, sound money and to end the Fed.
@AndroidPolitician One person who cares about your and my rights getting into the most powerful position in the free world WILL make a difference. If you're suggesting that the system can't be changed and we should just give up and accept a corrupt system that benefits banks, the military-industrial complex and insurance companies then fine, give up. I'll keep fighting to get Ron Paul in office and I'm not even American. That's how much I care, if you don't care about your own country, fine.
Sure but lets say we live in reality and the congress, which is run by every interest against those things, overrides his executive orders, because that's what would happen.
Patriotism aside, it's a bit misguided, people are replaceable, it's the system you need to change. Getting Ron Paul in there won't do anything except maybe get him impeached.
Yeah and congress can legislate to stop the generals from doing anything Paul says which they will given the system. The fact that he's running doesn't change reality.
It's not that they can't change anything it's that the system needs to be changed first or it won't make a difference who runs. Like it doesn't really matter who gets elected in Iran right now.
@AndroidPolitician OK then, while I'm spreading support for Ron Paul you can sit around and assume that nothing will change no matter who is elected.
At least we're trying to make a difference, you're helping nobody. All you're really doing is spreading a first-grade understanding of economics through terrible videos like this.
0:52 "Government subsidies reduce costs through simple supply and demand"
Even a 5 year old could explain why that's retarded.
You're trying to do the wrong thing, no one in Iran is trying to elect a good candidate they are trying to change the system, no one in the civil rights movement tried to elect someone they tried to change the system.
Yeah only a five year old would think what you're saying makes sense, because subsidies don't all turn into demand.
Part of it increases demand and the rest reduces it to a lower price than even the original.
I'm mean you're so obviously right and it does make a difference who Iran or the US tries to elect right? If only the Civil Rights movement ran good people into office and didn't engage with the system they would of won right?
And by linking that video I'm trying to get you to see what Ron Paul has actually been saying for 30 years. He's been fighting this fight for long enough that its time for people to realise he's been right all along, about everything. The wars, federal reserve, corporatism, erosion of civil liberties. He's been dead on every time. And then I find people like you who seem to have no understanding of his message and that's a problem.
People have been fighting and saying the right things for decades as well but if they're made president (Nader, Kucinich etc.) it won't make a bit of difference because of the way the system is designed.
Basically if Ron Paul was able to get elected you would of already won because you've changed the system.
Like in South Africa didn't change because Mandela got elected, it changed because the people ended the apartheid system allowing Mandela to run.
@AndroidPolitician OK, just tell me who's better. Who would you rather vote than Paul?
Because if you can't think of someone better then you're making my point. I may not agree with everything the guy stands for, but he's the best choice the world has.
My entire point is it doesn't matter whose better as long as the system is in place, like I'm not an especially a big fan of Paul but even if I was it wouldn't make a difference, just like it didn't make a difference in South African until after the system of apartheid collapsed in the 90s and then the best candidate was able to be elected.
@AndroidPolitician OK, well, he's the only one who is willing to make legitimate changes. So if you do decide to vote, I hope you cast it for Ron Paul.
The irony of what you said is that it's the exact opposite, changing the system is achievable but doing something impossible inside it isn't.
Like people ended the system of apartheid but if they tried to run Mandela as a presidential candidate it wouldn't of happened. Likewise there is not a chance Ron Paul will win.
@AndroidPolitician Yea that's why he has the second most delegates? Stop chanting your media spew. Ron Paul is legit and his chance to win the presidency is legit.
Even if he wins (which he won't because he can't out-raise Romney) the Republican party will just do a coup and make it Romney, insiders have been saying that's what would happen for any non-Romney.
He has no more chance of Winning then Mandela had a chance of winning the Presidency of South Africa in 1988.
@AndroidPolitician It's not about getting one person into power. It's about the perpetuation of a philosophy, it's about spreading fundamentally solid ideas, it's about influencing Americans to stop thinking with emotions and start thinking logically and it's about telling our government that we are done with lies and placation. Ron Paul is the leader of a movement. A movement based on ideas centuries old. The ideas in the constitution.
These cartoon videos are funny, they really are...I'll give them credit though for trying desperately to find a creative and appealing way to debunk Ron Paul. No matter how funny they are though, people won't be fooled. Put more public money into colleges eh? There goes your quality of education...college will become just like the public school system is right now: absolute, total SHIT.
Honestly though, I think the dislike bar and the name androidpolitican speak loudly.
The UC and Cal State systems, have seen massive increase in prices because there are MORE ADMINISTRATORS THEN TEACHERS!!!!!!!!! Not to mention budget cuts. Do we really need to pay six figure salaries to an Associate Chancellor of Cultural Diversity??? The bottom line is, public colleges waste money on nonsense!
where is the money going , have you ever asked yourself that?, look at some of the net worth of some of the large universities, it is literally off the chart....another case of having priorities backwards...really big surprise there
its simple logic. if the government guarantees loans and you run a college why wouldn't you raise tuition? do you believe that college administrators have some philosophical aversion to making too much money?
@AndroidPolitician ive always been quite happy with the prices of goods produced by the private sector. take for example the computer every year they get cheaper, more powerful and more durable, what service or product did the government ever provide with continued improvements in price performance and quality?
That's actually a textbook example of government intervention. Government both invented computers and subsidized the entire semiconductor industry so microchips get smaller.
Another negative example would be low corn prices.
@AndroidPolitician You're looking at only half the picture. Government subsidizes corn, corn prices go down, yet the money government pays for those subsidies has to come from somewhere. Whether it's by taxes, printing money, or going into debt, consumers pay more for lowering the price on those goods than the goods would be normally. You must have heard of Bastiat's seen vs unseen.
Saying "the money comes from somewhere" is akin to thinking that whenever private borrowers use money is subtracts from government spending, especially since it's not equal because of deficits and the fact that not every American goes to college.
That's the thing, they don't take $.60 (or at least not right away and not from the same people).
"Distortions" can be good or bad I assume you think every educated person that came from public school is a distortion.
@AndroidPolitician Your "money comes from somewhere" response is exactly backwards. When government taxes the money to subsidize the candy bar, it takes money out of the private economy. You can't take money out of the government economy because you'd be reversing cause and effect.
If the government taxes the money to subsidize the candy bar by $.50, it has to take more than that because government is not 100% efficient. There are overhead costs. If the government prints money to pay for it, then the price of all other goods goes up as the dollar is devalued, creating a net loss. If the government borrows the money to subsidize, it has to pay that money back, plus interest, making another net loss.
The money comes from loanable funds which are either used in the private economy or for the government, you can't have it both ways, either it crowds out from both government and private finance or neither crowds out.
And no the only way $.60 is taken out is if A) the budget is balanced or B) every person in the US goes to college (lets use if for college).
As you can tell we have a huge deficit and not every person paying taxes goes to college
@AndroidPolitician The funds have to come from three places: taxes, deficit spending, or printing money. In every case the money that is used to subsidize is greater than the price reduction, thereby making a net loss. Even if the budget is balanced, the people who take the money to subsidize need to be paid their salary. There are overhead costs. It is not 100% efficient. So on average people are always paying more in taxes than the reduction of the prices.
Loanable funds (in economics) come from banks, if it crowded out private investment at all times it would mean it would crowd out government spending because there's a static pile of money for both. The fact is government spending only crowds out investment during full employment.
Yes "eventually" as in decades but the benefit is immediate, it's like saying if someone bought a home they immediately pay down $200k and can't spend for years after.
@AndroidPolitician But it's not a static pile of money for both. The Fed can print money at the behest of government, government can go into debt to pay for things it wants regardless of the private economy, and the linchpin of my argument is that TAX is a one-way street. Government takes money out of the private economy, not the other way around. You don't see private businesses taxing government.
The Fed doesn't print money nor create the money supply, the closet it gets to creating money is emergency loans, what it does is regulate loanable funds by private banks.
Whether you realize it or not your argument is that there is a "static pile" of private loanable funds (where money comes from for both) and thereby the government can only "take away" money but for some reason businesses can't "take away" loanable funds from the government.
@AndroidPolitician "The Fed doesn't print money nor create the money supply." Okay true, yet the government can print money. My point is that every subsidizing act of state comes from one of three sources, which creates a net loss. More money is spent in subsidizing the item than the original price of the item, it is only the payment method that is shifted around like a ball and cup game.
As polls show, most people favor single-payer healthcare, Medicare, Social Security, social programs, carbon taxes, higher taxes on the rich etc. so the success of the movement isn't actually showing and will collapse once Paul doesn't get elected.
The Fed changes interest rates, how much money is circulated via debt is all based on the local private banks, not the Fed.
@AndroidPolitician Government is funded from the private economy, not the other way around. Even the money the government gives to the private economy has to be taken from the private economy unless the government prints it, or unless the government goes into debt to pay for it, which means the private economy has to pay for it eventually. It is a one way street.
@AndroidPolitician I'm not saying distortions are good or bad, but distortions cause unintended side-effects in the economy and many are considered detrimental, like the over-consumption of beef and high fructose corn syrup due to government subsidies in those industries.
@AndroidPolitician Most distortions have no made good consequences and college subsidies have are not the exception. Education is not an end, but a means to an end. Universities and colleges were relatively cheap before the government got involved, because as others pointed out, the supply and demand curves were not artificially skewed. When supply stayed stagnant and demand rose, it created artificially higher prices that car countered the effect of the subsidies.
College was less expensive when public colleges (the vast majority of colleges) were paid for by the government and not privatized for students to pay.
What you're seeing now is not a "market distortion" for college grads it's the result of the recession, everyone has high unemployment because demand for everyone is low.
@AndroidPolitician College was less expansive because the price system and supply and demand was not skewed. Government allows students to get cheap loans, more students go to college, but the supply of colleges can't keep pace, and so the colleges must raise their prices. Prices are too high, the government lowers tuition, more people scramble for cheap college, prices have to rise again, they call for more subsidies and the cycle continues. This is very basic economics here.
Most studies that looked into college costs found that's literally not the case at all, college was less expensive because there was no expense, period. It was funded by the government. The very existence of an "expensive" to students was introduced by tuition and privatization.
No it didn't at full employment almost every college grad had a job.
It's a non-point because nothing is 100% efficient.
@AndroidPolitician You'll have to show me these studies because college tuition was not entirely paid for by the government in the early 20th century. Never have I seen anywhere that says college had no expense. You'll have to back that up with some sources.
@AndroidPolitician "No it didn't at full employment almost every college grad had a job."
Please give sources, and I have to ask: what KIND of job? A college grad working at McDonalds is not unemployed, but underemployed, which is not represented in such employment rates. And that's the problem, degree saturation doesn't mean college grads can't get a job, it's that they can't get a job in their field because labor in that field has been flooded.
The study is right in the video description as is what happens to supply and demand curves because of subsidies.
You point was unemployment, in the late 90s when there was full employment college grads were just like everyone else. If your point was correct there would of been some horrible mismatch of highly unemployed grads while there was 4% total unemployment.
@AndroidPolitician You are not reading what I'm writing. My main point was not unemployment, but that subsidies cost more overall then the original price. As I said, for the government to subsidize $.50 of a candy bar, the government must print, tax, or go into debt for more than $.50. It means the total cost of the subsidies is more than what the price was before. Subsidizing therefore creates a net loss and serves only to shift the burden around to more people.
Your main point is wrong both economically and logically, economically subsidies create multiplier effects which end up priming the overall economy and creating more revenue and logically (which I've said over and over again) spending and taxes are not equal (<---- did you catch that? they aren't equal).
Your taxes did not increase the day the stimulus took effect and not every person that pays for a $.50 candy bar gets a tax increase equal on the same day.
@AndroidPolitician Government stimulus just doesn't work. Economies are organic, they do not need to be primed. This whole idea that subsidies create a positive net gain or create massive multiplier effects are just Keynesian shortsightedness without looking at the long term.
Reducing the price of a good by subsidizing it might have short term gains but long term debt, inflation, taxes, whatever is used to pay, is far higher than the reduction in price. That is just a fact of things work.
Stimulus has shown to work for about 80 years of economic research and agreed to exist basically by everyone except Austrians.
Generally yes but you're talking about an immediate reward that's paid off over decades which is so obvious a benefit it's amazing your still arguing over it.
Like are you against mortgages because people don't immediately put down $200k in a single day?
@AndroidPolitician It's agreed on by the Keynesians because the mindset is shortsighted and doesn't differentiate productive spending from nonproductive spending, i.e. accepting the broken window fallacy. The result of Keynesian manipulation, government spending, and the failure of stimulus is self-evident in the economic crisis.
Uh it's been proven and agreed by people other than Keynesians like monetarists. It's so "self-evident" that like a dozen studies show that the stimulus reduced unemployment by millions.
Someone paying taxes for a decade for an immediate reward is better than laying down $200k immediately.
The point about interest is a good one because the vast majority of the interest on the debt is back to ourselves.
@AndroidPolitician Stimulus spending (like any government spending) is only self-evident to those within the political establishment. Keynes' ideas are popular simply because it strung a chord with politicians, so of course politics and Keynesian economics are going to gravitate together. The fact is that the stimulus spending did not work, and the only concession they Keynesians have is that it would have been worse otherwise - a claim that cannot be proven.
@AndroidPolitician I don't dispute that stimulus spending will give a boon to the economy, but it will only ever be in the short run. Charging everything on a credit card will give you vast amounts of wealth, but only in the immediate present.
That's fundamental problem with government stimulus and subsidies. They alleviate the symptoms temporarily but prolong the disease. The stimulus therefore did not fix anything, but it pushed our problems into the future and made them worse from interest.
Well first I meant in the sense of researchers not just politicians and secondly without stimulus you wouldn't be able to cut spending in the long term. With austerity your debt still increases because the economy becomes worse off which leads to a shrinking tax base so it's impossible to cut your way out of a recession.
In terms of "interest on the debt" where does that interest go? Some of it goes to China etc. but most of it goes back to American's pockets.
@AndroidPolitician Oh my! Govt spending (stimulus) must be paid for somehow. There is no way the Govt can get money without a negative consequence. So to "stimulate' the economy, which is easy to observe, the negative consequence is hard to observe. Just because its hard doesnt mean it doesnt exist. If you tax me more, I cant tip the strippers as much, nor get lap dances. That harms their little bastards. You must hate babies.
@AndroidPolitician Oh my! Govt spending (stimulus) must be paid for somehow. There is no way the Govt can get money without a negative consequence. So to "stimulate' the economy, which is easy to observe, the negative consequence is hard to observe. Just because its hard doesnt mean it doesnt exist. If you tax me more, I cant tip the strippers as much, nor get lap dances. That harms their little bastards. You must hate babies.
@AndroidPolitician "In terms of "interest on the debt" where does that interest go? Some of it goes to China etc. but most of it goes back to American's pockets."
That has to be one of the more retarded statements I've sen. So Americans get part of their money back and supposedly somehow that's supposed to magically create a net gain? Last I checked, going into debt to yourself didn't make you any wealthier. Actually it does the opposite. And I think you need to brush up on the term "debt".
It does create a net gain, look at the bond repayments after WWI and you "yourself" are a person, not a country.
You didn't answer the point about austerity, it creates a paradox, if you cut spending you harm the economy and diminish the tax base which results in more debt. It's what happened with Hoover, FDR in 1937 and right now if we cut spending.
@AndroidPolitician Where does Govt get the money to spend, without a corresponding negative effect? Corn is expressed on our commodity markets at the gulf of Mexico. It is an international commodity, as is oil, gold, silver, soybeans, etc. Transportation may affect values slightly, and Mexico has price controls, subsidizing tortillas lower, but these are minor. The US subsidizes the producer, increasing world supplies, and ethanol, increasing demand, but its international
The recent spike in corn prices is because speculation and is a new phenomenon, even still and prior, prices are at an all time low and it's because of subsidies.
@AndroidPolitician Chicago Board of Trade Corn was about 250 mid 2006, about 260 mid 2002, and about 625 in 2008, and 610 now. You said, "prices are at an all time low and it's because of subsidies". BS! Speculators? They just anticipate changes in market forces. Price allocates commodities. Someone must take action to keep market in balance, at equilibrium. If supply is to decrease, or demand increase, prices must rise, to encourage producing more, and using less.
@AndroidPolitician Austerity doesn't create a paradox. The private economy grows by itself, it is not an engine that can stall or needs to be tweaked or stimulated. Producers produce, entrepreneurs create, consumers consume, investors invest, demands are met. Government comes in and takes its cut and diverts resources to whatever it wants, much of it being unproductive. The higher tax and spending goes the worse the economy is because once productive resources are diverted to unproductive ends.
@AndroidPolitician The idea that cutting spending hurts the economy has been debunked over an over. Even today countries that have cut spending, like Canada, have mostly recovered from the recession, while the US continues to spend and continues to fall. If you think it's bad now, just wait.
@AndroidPolitician Government spending, by its nature, is unproductive in comparison to the usual action of the economy. If prices are high, firms try to cut them so they can get more customers. Government coming in and subsidizing the price does not have a net stimulative effect but a depressive one that is passed onto the economy as a whole, which also means it is rarely felt by lone single consumer. However enough subsidies and spending makes the trend noticeable; now it definitely is.
No it hasn't at all, it's shown the opposite, cutting spending in places like the UK, Ireland, Latvia etc. has worsened unemployment and resulted in diminished taxes and thus higher debt (as it has historically).
So you're saying the 0.001% in taxes that goes to subsidize X that results in a reduced price of say 10% is a net loss? Even overtime it's still an obvious gain.
@AndroidPolitician But it's not 0.001% in taxes, and even if it were 10% gain it is only a gain right now. That and the government is not a magician. It cannot magically make something cheaper by spending less than the difference.
Every dollar the government spends is a dollar taken from the private economy, or a dollar + interest that will be taken out of the private economy at a later date. That, by it's nature is wasteful. You are looking present gains and ignoring larger future losses.
@AndroidPolitician Actually austerity plans do work. The US depression of 1920-1921 was worse than the "great" depression and lasted less than a year because of austerity measures. Austerity measures made the US economy bounce back after WW2, since it was the Keynesians who cried havoc and demanded that we keep making ships for a war we weren't fighting. Canada has bounced back because of its austerity measures. UK, Ireland, etc are collapsing BECAUSE government spending as passed the threshold.
@AndroidPolitician The problem with bad economists and most people in general is that they do not look beyond the single result. They notice the immediate benefit but they do not notice displaced harm. Yes corn prices are lower, but rarely do people notice the cumulative, dispersed effects, let alone future outcomes of those actions. Taking it all on aggregate, the result is a net loss. Govt. spending is a means to and end, and if the end is productive use of resources, then it fails hands down.
@AndroidPolitician And that's what bad economists don't get: they don't consider the side effects or unintended consequences further along the road. Corn subsidies make prices lower, but there is additional cost from the consumer in the form of taxes both to them and their employer, either in the immediate present or in the future, which makes them pay far more in the long run. The same applies for college education, gasoline, etc. I suggest reading Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt.
@AndroidPolitician Buying a ton of goods on a credit card and paying it back, plus interest, at a later date is less cost effective than paying for things as you go. That is the problem with subsidies. They lower the prices right off the bat, but the costs are paid in the future and they are much higher than the good otherwise. If you think that strategy is in any way more efficient then you probably need to listen to those Austrians.
@AndroidPolitician "It's a non-point because nothing is 100% efficient."
No it IS a point, you're just ignoring it. You say that government subsidizes something and makes it cheaper, but you are not considering the seen vs the unseen. Because, as you just admitted, government is not 100% efficient, the money taken to subsidize something needs to be GREATER than the price reduced. Since that money is taken in taxes, created by printing or deficit spending, then there is a NET LOSS to consumers.
First of all nothing is 100% efficient but your conflating "inefficiency" in bureaucracy in administrating benefits (which is orders of magnitude far away from being costlier then the benefits) and taxes used to pay for them which I already addressed numerous times.
By your logic if someone bought a house they have to pay down $200k immediately and the cost outweighs the benefit of buying a house.
@AndroidPolitician If someone bought a house for $200k then it is their own cost to pay, and whether they benefit or not is subjective but it is ultimately their choice. However if the government subsidizes the cost the buyer will pay for the house at $100k, but the money paid by the government will be some number (depending on method) greater than $100k (because as you said it is not 100% efficient), thereby artificially increasing the price of the good higher than it would be otherwise.
The point of the metaphor was the home loan was government spending, if someone buys a house they don't immediately contract by $200k.
And here's a simple hint, programs aren't 100% efficient but the cost of administration is included in their provisions, you have to be crazy to think somehow for 200 years the costs of bureaucracy weren't included let alone over the program.
@AndroidPolitician Yes the cost of administration is included in the provisions which is why the provisions have to be MORE than the reduction in price. This is NOT hard to understand at all.
To reduce something by $100k requires MORE THAN $100k to achieve, meaning all of us as consumers, some how, some way, will always pay more for something than if the subsidies weren't there. The only reason why we don't see it right now is because it has all been charged to the government's debt.
@AndroidPolitician Actually degree saturation was happening way before the recession. The high number of people with degrees overshot market demand because, again, government encouraged and supported people going to college.
@AndroidPolitician And you didn't address the point that government is not 100% efficient in subsidizing. Do you think there is a net gain by taxing, going into debt, or printing money in order to cut the price of something in the market?
@AndroidPolitician Not only that, but because the price was artificially low for a time, and since demand was artificially increased, it released far more people with college degrees into a labor market that didn't have the jobs to sustain them. Because now the labor markets are saturated with people holding college degrees, most of them can't find work in their field and must get entry level positions elsewhere, wasting their degree, time, and money, and crowding out people without degrees.
@AndroidPolitician If a candy bar is normally $1.00, and the government subsidizes it, causing the price to go down to $.50, but they take $.60 from me to pay for it, then am I really paying less?
Not to mention that prices are a feedback mechanism to consumers and investors. If the price is artificially manipulated, it sends distortions throughout the market, and you can see that very thing with your example of corn subsidies causing high fructose corn syrup to dominate as a sweetener.
@AndroidPolitician Corn is just a commodity, and world prices reflect US prices. Transportation of course enters in, but the rise in grain prices has been felt all over the world, in corn, soybeans and other crops. 2 points: Prices for sale in US are reflected everywhere. Corn specifically have risen massively, ethanol being one of the reasons. Acres being diverted from other uses to corn lifts other prices as well.
The US still has overwhelmingly cheaper corn prices than countries that don't have subsidies and that's actually reflected with a global increase because of ethanol since countries like Mexico have been struggling with corn.
@AndroidPolitician Take a look at a chart of corn, over the last 10 years. I guess you think each country has its own oil price? Gold price? Silver? Soybeans? Cotton? Copper? Not much into commodity investing, are you slick?
How can you say that subsidies reduce prices through supply and demand? If you decrease the cost customers have to pay, by subsidizing, then you will increase demand. It doesn't matter to the end customer that the unsubsidized price is higher than what they are paying; that does not figure into their decision.
@AndroidPolitician That is a non-answer. There is a certain demand curve for any product or service on the market, and when you lower the price to the consumer, you move along that curve. Are you claiming that the demand curve for college is such that demand decreases as prices go down? That if people only had to pay 1/2 what they do now, for whatever reason, fewer people would go?
Obviously demand increases but not enough to catch up with the subsidy which ends up reducing the price lower than the original even with increased demand.
It's not a case were subsidy = demand increase.
Go see the link in description on subsidies and supply and demand.
@AndroidPolitician So why is there a different demand curve when subsidies are involved? Hard to imagine a chain of causation that would explain such a thing.
If by "different demand curve" you mean demand increases then it's like I said, demand goes up but the subsidy is still able to offset it to a point where it's lower than even the original price.
@AndroidPolitician How does a subsidy "offset" demand? Btw sorry for the multiple comments, for some reason my original one didn't show up right away.
@AndroidPolitician For what reason? Buying decisions are made by consumers, who do not care whether the price is subsidized. How much they have to pay is determined by how much they have to pay. Now, it is possible that college admissions temporarily suppress demand, but that effect is only short-term, since the incentives are for the colleges to expand (as they are) and get more student capacity.
It's a basic macroeconomic rule that not all of the subsidy becomes demand. If it did then there wouldn't be subsidies since all they would do is drive up prices.
@AndroidPolitician That is my point: it does nothing but drive up demand and thus prices. What you are saying is like we are arguing about whether or not the world is round, and I cite the inverse square law for gravity, and show that the world must be round if it follows that law. Then you say: "no, it is a basic rule of science that gravity doesn't follow the inverse square law, because then the world would be round!". You can't use your own argument position as supporting evidence.
Well then your point is wrong, and actually you would be the one arguing the world isn't round here, by citing "basic economics".
What actual economics says is about 40% of the subsidy becomes demand and 60% just acts as the subsidy reducing the price lower then it would have been.
Since you probably wont look in the description here's the actual literal basic econ textbook (remove parenthesis).
That's not a fallacious use of authority, like if I said smoking causes cancer and pointed to numerous studies apparently you would call that "appeal to authority" because scientists wrote them. Using evidence from people is not inherently argument from authority.
But in case you tapped out all your "econ 101" wisdom cheers.
@AndroidPolitician - What economics - and the study of human nature in general - says is that if someone else foots the bill for a given good or service the person receiving it will not care for the actual cost.
Go to the link in the description about basic economics and subsidies (only 40% of the subsidy increases demand) instead of using your version of "economics".
@AndroidPolitician - Nothing in it addresses the fact that if financial aid is paying for all your education, the cost becomes irrelevant to the recipient because they are not the ones who must pay for it.
Well first of all you have to psychotic to think 100% of the bill is subsidized, secondly as it points out the effects of subsidies are 40% increase in price (or demand) and the remaining 60% acting to reduce it lower than the original price.
Seriously you're not brilliantly out thinking hundreds of economists, subsidies reduce prices and that's why their used.
@AndroidPolitician - This is true of every community college (full subsidy) and secondly, if subsidies reduced prices how come the cost of college is nearly ten times what it was in the 70's?
@AndroidPolitician - Okay, here is a simple yes or no question. If you are not paying the full cost of something because it has been imposed on other people. are you as likely to care about higher prices on that good?
Sorry but "you" is not applicable here because this isn't microeconomics "you taking care of your family and buy things" this is macroeconomics and the "you" in this case is about a thousand colleges.
It's been said a million times, the macro effect of subsidies is yes it'll increase the original price by 40% but it'll also decrease it by 60%.
@AndroidPolitician - The same logic applies, the trends of thousands of colleges is nothing more than the sum of individuals. It is a simple yes or no question, are you as likely to care about higher prices if you are not paying the full cost or not?
@AndroidPolitician - Once again you continue to dodge the question. A subsidy to the buyer means they are not paying the full cost of college that they would otherwise have to pay, right?
So,,to make college affordable for me and everyone else, I/ we need to pay more in taxes to subsidize it?
cliffy827 15 hours ago
@cliffy827
No you just need to shift tax cuts for the rich into funding for public colleges. If you ever noticed, places like Florida give out $4.2 billion tax cuts for rich people while cutting $4.3 billion in public spending.
If it were reversed, you would be massively funding education without changing taxes on most people.
AndroidPolitician 11 hours ago
thumb if you thought this was a Family Guy clip in the sidebar.
AlphaQsoft 2 days ago
Supply and demand dude. EVERYONE is going to college and there are only so many spots they can fill up. So every year just raise that tuition a bit higher like the boiling frog.
areuter727 4 days ago
@areuter727
Uh no, the percent of the population that's college educated has actually stagnated for decades the reason why college spending is going up is because of privatization since most people go to public schools.
If all aid was cut, it won't stop cutting state funding for public colleges.
AndroidPolitician 4 days ago
@AndroidPolitician If it's because of privatization why is the cost of public schools so high?
DoesNotApply 4 days ago
@DoesNotApply
Because they're being privatized...like this isn't rocket science. For years states have been cutting funding for public colleges so they offset it with higher tuition and shift the cost to students.
With regards to Paul if that was your movement you wouldn't be trying to get Paul elected as your main goal, like the anti-apartheid movement wasn't trying to get Nelson Mandela elected in 1980.
(cont.)
AndroidPolitician 3 days ago
@AndroidPolitician Funding was going up for education for a very long time until recently. Tuition was going up the whole time. Ron Paul is a CLOSE second for republican nomination. Has just as much campaign funding as any other candidate. The Fed has control over the banks reserve accounts, not only interest rates, and can add money. The polls you're referring to contradict with other polls. I agree with everyone else responding. You're simply wrong. And you make shit up.
DoesNotApply 3 days ago
@DoesNotApply
Tuition for public colleges has not gone up as high until recently, check the study in the descriptions.
No they don't, the reserve accounts are at the banks' discretion, they can only alter interest rates and a few other things but not "create money".
What other polls? If you take 2 seconds to google it you'll find most people favor the things I posted.
AndroidPolitician 2 days ago
@AndroidPolitician If people couldn't get cheap (read: low interest) student loans and had to pay out of pocket a lot of people would not go to college. No customers = no business and as we know education is a HUGE industry.
State funding is a cop out. Socrates could kick nearly any modern college professor's ass when it comes to dispensing knowledge and he taught on a rock and dirt.
A lot of colleges remind me of federal government spending, with their big land/building buys.
areuter727 3 days ago
@areuter727
That's true but state spending wouldn't necessarily go back up and stop the process of privatizing public colleges so tuition would still go up.
Socrates lived in a time when everything was around rock and dirt, not just college.
AndroidPolitician 3 days ago
Supply and demand. Get rid of the subsidies and colleges are forced to reduce tuitions or they will have no students at all.
randyd024 5 days ago
@randyd024
Tuitions are a symptom of privatizing public schools and shifting the cost to students not the cause. Eliminating them won't stop the process of privatization and will only make it more expensive.
AndroidPolitician 5 days ago
Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Syria have risen up against their corrupt governments. In America you had the Occupy protest and you made fun of them and let them be arrested. You had a real chance to change things and you blew it America. This proves that Americans are nothing but pussies and you will roll over whenever the rich tell you to. You keep bitching about government when greed is your real problem.
SimXLive 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The stupid Liberal said the most Cost effective colleges are Military Acadimies, what a rediculous statement, he blew his whole case right there!!! Nothing the military does is even close to cost effective. And when the government hands outs student loans to anyone that asks for them, then ofcourse the colleges are going to raise there tutitions. Basic economics.
CeletenteFan223 2 weeks ago
RON PAUL 2012!!
MrAgentGreeny 2 weeks ago
@MrAgentGreeny
Serious question, lets say Ron Paul wins and signs an act executive order ending all the wars and legalizing weed but Congress overrides it. What then?
You do realize getting one person into power isn't going to make a difference. It's the system that's doing all the decisions not bad people in government.
AndroidPolitician 2 weeks ago
@AndroidPolitician
1. Exec orders can't be used to legislate, Ron Paul knows this and wouldn't use them to legislate.
2. As commander-in-chief, the President can order his generals and personnel to do whatever he wants. If he orders them to return home on a 6 month timetable, that's what they'll do.
3. I agree, on many issues he would need the support of congress. But if RP were elected, that'd be the sign that voters actually do want more personal liberty, sound money and to end the Fed.
MrAgentGreeny 2 weeks ago
@AndroidPolitician One person who cares about your and my rights getting into the most powerful position in the free world WILL make a difference. If you're suggesting that the system can't be changed and we should just give up and accept a corrupt system that benefits banks, the military-industrial complex and insurance companies then fine, give up. I'll keep fighting to get Ron Paul in office and I'm not even American. That's how much I care, if you don't care about your own country, fine.
MrAgentGreeny 2 weeks ago
@MrAgentGreeny
Sure but lets say we live in reality and the congress, which is run by every interest against those things, overrides his executive orders, because that's what would happen.
Patriotism aside, it's a bit misguided, people are replaceable, it's the system you need to change. Getting Ron Paul in there won't do anything except maybe get him impeached.
AndroidPolitician 2 weeks ago
@AndroidPolitician You didn't read anything I just said.
He will not legislate with executive orders.
As commander-in-chief he can command his generals.
And if you've decided that there's no way he could change anything even if he were elected, then I guess you've given up.
MrAgentGreeny 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
MrAgentGreeny 2 weeks ago
@MrAgentGreeny
Yeah and congress can legislate to stop the generals from doing anything Paul says which they will given the system. The fact that he's running doesn't change reality.
It's not that they can't change anything it's that the system needs to be changed first or it won't make a difference who runs. Like it doesn't really matter who gets elected in Iran right now.
AndroidPolitician 2 weeks ago
@AndroidPolitician OK then, while I'm spreading support for Ron Paul you can sit around and assume that nothing will change no matter who is elected.
At least we're trying to make a difference, you're helping nobody. All you're really doing is spreading a first-grade understanding of economics through terrible videos like this.
0:52 "Government subsidies reduce costs through simple supply and demand"
Even a 5 year old could explain why that's retarded.
MrAgentGreeny 2 weeks ago
@MrAgentGreeny
You're trying to do the wrong thing, no one in Iran is trying to elect a good candidate they are trying to change the system, no one in the civil rights movement tried to elect someone they tried to change the system.
Yeah only a five year old would think what you're saying makes sense, because subsidies don't all turn into demand.
Part of it increases demand and the rest reduces it to a lower price than even the original.
AndroidPolitician 2 weeks ago
@AndroidPolitician
watch?v=Sok0oU8R-uU
MrAgentGreeny 1 week ago
@MrAgentGreeny
You actually gonna address anything I said?
I'm mean you're so obviously right and it does make a difference who Iran or the US tries to elect right? If only the Civil Rights movement ran good people into office and didn't engage with the system they would of won right?
AndroidPolitician 1 week ago
@AndroidPolitician What you're saying doesn't even make sense.
And by linking that video I'm trying to get you to see what Ron Paul has actually been saying for 30 years. He's been fighting this fight for long enough that its time for people to realise he's been right all along, about everything. The wars, federal reserve, corporatism, erosion of civil liberties. He's been dead on every time. And then I find people like you who seem to have no understanding of his message and that's a problem.
MrAgentGreeny 1 week ago
@MrAgentGreeny
People have been fighting and saying the right things for decades as well but if they're made president (Nader, Kucinich etc.) it won't make a bit of difference because of the way the system is designed.
Basically if Ron Paul was able to get elected you would of already won because you've changed the system.
Like in South Africa didn't change because Mandela got elected, it changed because the people ended the apartheid system allowing Mandela to run.
AndroidPolitician 1 week ago
@AndroidPolitician And that's why we need people to get out there and spread his message, to change the system by changing the minds of the people.
MrAgentGreeny 1 week ago
@MrAgentGreeny
People's minds are "changed", almost no one supports the system we have now, what's left to do is change it.
AndroidPolitician 1 week ago
@AndroidPolitician And that's where you vote Ron Paul.
MrAgentGreeny 1 week ago
@MrAgentGreeny
Most people would have voted for Nelson Mandela for decades in South Africa but for some reason that wouldn't of made a big difference.
AndroidPolitician 1 week ago
@AndroidPolitician OK, just tell me who's better. Who would you rather vote than Paul?
Because if you can't think of someone better then you're making my point. I may not agree with everything the guy stands for, but he's the best choice the world has.
MrAgentGreeny 1 week ago
@MrAgentGreeny
My entire point is it doesn't matter whose better as long as the system is in place, like I'm not an especially a big fan of Paul but even if I was it wouldn't make a difference, just like it didn't make a difference in South African until after the system of apartheid collapsed in the 90s and then the best candidate was able to be elected.
AndroidPolitician 1 week ago
@AndroidPolitician OK, well, he's the only one who is willing to make legitimate changes. So if you do decide to vote, I hope you cast it for Ron Paul.
MrAgentGreeny 1 week ago
@MrAgentGreeny
Why don't I just go back in time to 1980 in South Africa and cast a vote for Nelson Mandela while I'm at it?
Are you really still not getting it? How about this, say you were in the Soviet Union and everyone wanted to vote for Sakarov.
If you want to do some activism, try to change the system.
AndroidPolitician 1 week ago
@AndroidPolitician How exactly do you plan to change the system?
I'm at least fighting for something that's achievable.
MrAgentGreeny 1 week ago
@MrAgentGreeny
By organizing in resistance to it.
The irony of what you said is that it's the exact opposite, changing the system is achievable but doing something impossible inside it isn't.
Like people ended the system of apartheid but if they tried to run Mandela as a presidential candidate it wouldn't of happened. Likewise there is not a chance Ron Paul will win.
AndroidPolitician 5 days ago
@AndroidPolitician Yea that's why he has the second most delegates? Stop chanting your media spew. Ron Paul is legit and his chance to win the presidency is legit.
DoesNotApply 5 days ago
@DoesNotApply
Even if he wins (which he won't because he can't out-raise Romney) the Republican party will just do a coup and make it Romney, insiders have been saying that's what would happen for any non-Romney.
He has no more chance of Winning then Mandela had a chance of winning the Presidency of South Africa in 1988.
AndroidPolitician 4 days ago
Comment removed
MrAgentGreeny 2 weeks ago
@AndroidPolitician It's not about getting one person into power. It's about the perpetuation of a philosophy, it's about spreading fundamentally solid ideas, it's about influencing Americans to stop thinking with emotions and start thinking logically and it's about telling our government that we are done with lies and placation. Ron Paul is the leader of a movement. A movement based on ideas centuries old. The ideas in the constitution.
DoesNotApply 4 days ago
The stupid Liberal said the most COst effective colleges are Military Acadimies, what a rediculous statement, he blew his whole case right there!!!
CeletenteFan223 3 weeks ago
@CeletenteFan223 nothing the Military does is anything close to cost effective, what a dumbass.
CeletenteFan223 3 weeks ago
binaural beats.
tonypiecuzpan 3 weeks ago
This video has probably been created by the government.
Bergkristall 4 weeks ago 2
@Bergkristall
Obviously, I also helped plan 9/11 for the Bush Administration.
AndroidPolitician 4 weeks ago
@AndroidPolitician
or you are just intellectually incompetent and your parents gave you a nice job as soon as you graduated.
MVPQALWAYS 2 weeks ago
Tax cuts for the rich, very funny.
MegaFun1000 1 month ago
Thanks for realizing that the audio quality of your video is so horrendous that you needed to add subtitles. It could have been worse.
stebecool 1 month ago 6
@stebecool it's your cheap ass big lot speakers fool!
CeletenteFan223 3 weeks ago
GoAnimate: The easy way for a lazy bastard to put strawman arguments directly into his opponents' moths.
HomicidalDonut 1 month ago
@HomicidalDonut LOL, should I call you "lazy" for not checking your spelling? And how exactly are conservative arguments straw-manned here?
Zakdayak 4 weeks ago
Lol so much bullshit xD
These cartoon videos are funny, they really are...I'll give them credit though for trying desperately to find a creative and appealing way to debunk Ron Paul. No matter how funny they are though, people won't be fooled. Put more public money into colleges eh? There goes your quality of education...college will become just like the public school system is right now: absolute, total SHIT.
Honestly though, I think the dislike bar and the name androidpolitican speak loudly.
Spjungen 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The UC and Cal State systems, have seen massive increase in prices because there are MORE ADMINISTRATORS THEN TEACHERS!!!!!!!!! Not to mention budget cuts. Do we really need to pay six figure salaries to an Associate Chancellor of Cultural Diversity??? The bottom line is, public colleges waste money on nonsense!
othrecords 1 month ago
Comment removed
othrecords 1 month ago
where is the money going , have you ever asked yourself that?, look at some of the net worth of some of the large universities, it is literally off the chart....another case of having priorities backwards...really big surprise there
drwaxmax 1 month ago
Nothing I learned in college contributes to my income except the social networks that college enabled me to enter.
MrLeftwall 1 month ago
Government Subsidies Enable Corruption!
MrLeftwall 1 month ago
Make them all for-profit private colleges... Everest and Phoenix have amazing reputations...
couldntgetagoodname 1 month ago
@couldntgetagoodname
Can't tell if this is sarcastic...
AndroidPolitician 1 month ago
@couldntgetagoodname hahahahahaha omfg!! hahahaha
IceZero123 1 month ago
its simple logic. if the government guarantees loans and you run a college why wouldn't you raise tuition? do you believe that college administrators have some philosophical aversion to making too much money?
xcvsdxvsx 2 months ago
@xcvsdxvsx
It does to a degree but the vast majority of tuition rises is because college is being privatized or that tuition even exists for that matter.
@StateExempt
Not as much no but that's kind of irrelevant given the actual facts of what subsidies do.
AndroidPolitician 2 months ago
@AndroidPolitician ive always been quite happy with the prices of goods produced by the private sector. take for example the computer every year they get cheaper, more powerful and more durable, what service or product did the government ever provide with continued improvements in price performance and quality?
xcvsdxvsx 2 months ago
@xcvsdxvsx
That's actually a textbook example of government intervention. Government both invented computers and subsidized the entire semiconductor industry so microchips get smaller.
Another negative example would be low corn prices.
AndroidPolitician 2 months ago
@AndroidPolitician You're looking at only half the picture. Government subsidizes corn, corn prices go down, yet the money government pays for those subsidies has to come from somewhere. Whether it's by taxes, printing money, or going into debt, consumers pay more for lowering the price on those goods than the goods would be normally. You must have heard of Bastiat's seen vs unseen.
Dirge987 2 months ago
@Dirge987
Saying "the money comes from somewhere" is akin to thinking that whenever private borrowers use money is subtracts from government spending, especially since it's not equal because of deficits and the fact that not every American goes to college.
That's the thing, they don't take $.60 (or at least not right away and not from the same people).
"Distortions" can be good or bad I assume you think every educated person that came from public school is a distortion.
AndroidPolitician 2 months ago
@AndroidPolitician Your "money comes from somewhere" response is exactly backwards. When government taxes the money to subsidize the candy bar, it takes money out of the private economy. You can't take money out of the government economy because you'd be reversing cause and effect.
Dirge987 2 months ago
@AndroidPolitician "That's the thing, they don't take $.60"
But they do.
If the government taxes the money to subsidize the candy bar by $.50, it has to take more than that because government is not 100% efficient. There are overhead costs. If the government prints money to pay for it, then the price of all other goods goes up as the dollar is devalued, creating a net loss. If the government borrows the money to subsidize, it has to pay that money back, plus interest, making another net loss.
Dirge987 2 months ago
@Dirge987
The money comes from loanable funds which are either used in the private economy or for the government, you can't have it both ways, either it crowds out from both government and private finance or neither crowds out.
And no the only way $.60 is taken out is if A) the budget is balanced or B) every person in the US goes to college (lets use if for college).
As you can tell we have a huge deficit and not every person paying taxes goes to college
(Cont.)
AndroidPolitician 2 months ago
@AndroidPolitician The funds have to come from three places: taxes, deficit spending, or printing money. In every case the money that is used to subsidize is greater than the price reduction, thereby making a net loss. Even if the budget is balanced, the people who take the money to subsidize need to be paid their salary. There are overhead costs. It is not 100% efficient. So on average people are always paying more in taxes than the reduction of the prices.
Dirge987 2 months ago
@Dirge987
Loanable funds (in economics) come from banks, if it crowded out private investment at all times it would mean it would crowd out government spending because there's a static pile of money for both. The fact is government spending only crowds out investment during full employment.
Yes "eventually" as in decades but the benefit is immediate, it's like saying if someone bought a home they immediately pay down $200k and can't spend for years after.
(Cont.)
AndroidPolitician 2 months ago
@AndroidPolitician But it's not a static pile of money for both. The Fed can print money at the behest of government, government can go into debt to pay for things it wants regardless of the private economy, and the linchpin of my argument is that TAX is a one-way street. Government takes money out of the private economy, not the other way around. You don't see private businesses taxing government.
Dirge987 2 months ago
@Dirge987
The Fed doesn't print money nor create the money supply, the closet it gets to creating money is emergency loans, what it does is regulate loanable funds by private banks.
Whether you realize it or not your argument is that there is a "static pile" of private loanable funds (where money comes from for both) and thereby the government can only "take away" money but for some reason businesses can't "take away" loanable funds from the government.
AndroidPolitician 2 months ago
@AndroidPolitician "The Fed doesn't print money nor create the money supply." Okay true, yet the government can print money. My point is that every subsidizing act of state comes from one of three sources, which creates a net loss. More money is spent in subsidizing the item than the original price of the item, it is only the payment method that is shifted around like a ball and cup game.
Dirge987 2 months ago
@Dirge987 Actually, just so you know, the Fed does create money. They control the reserve accounts for banks. Adding money to the economy.
DoesNotApply 4 days ago
@DoesNotApply
2/2
As polls show, most people favor single-payer healthcare, Medicare, Social Security, social programs, carbon taxes, higher taxes on the rich etc. so the success of the movement isn't actually showing and will collapse once Paul doesn't get elected.
The Fed changes interest rates, how much money is circulated via debt is all based on the local private banks, not the Fed.
AndroidPolitician 3 days ago
@AndroidPolitician Government is funded from the private economy, not the other way around. Even the money the government gives to the private economy has to be taken from the private economy unless the government prints it, or unless the government goes into debt to pay for it, which means the private economy has to pay for it eventually. It is a one way street.
Dirge987 2 months ago
@AndroidPolitician I'm not saying distortions are good or bad, but distortions cause unintended side-effects in the economy and many are considered detrimental, like the over-consumption of beef and high fructose corn syrup due to government subsidies in those industries.
Dirge987 2 months ago
@Dirge987
(Cont.)
The consequences are what make it good or bad, in the case of college subsidies it helps to offset the effects of privatizing college.
AndroidPolitician 2 months ago
@AndroidPolitician Most distortions have no made good consequences and college subsidies have are not the exception. Education is not an end, but a means to an end. Universities and colleges were relatively cheap before the government got involved, because as others pointed out, the supply and demand curves were not artificially skewed. When supply stayed stagnant and demand rose, it created artificially higher prices that car countered the effect of the subsidies.
Dirge987 2 months ago
@Dirge987
College was less expensive when public colleges (the vast majority of colleges) were paid for by the government and not privatized for students to pay.
What you're seeing now is not a "market distortion" for college grads it's the result of the recession, everyone has high unemployment because demand for everyone is low.
AndroidPolitician 2 months ago
@AndroidPolitician College was less expansive because the price system and supply and demand was not skewed. Government allows students to get cheap loans, more students go to college, but the supply of colleges can't keep pace, and so the colleges must raise their prices. Prices are too high, the government lowers tuition, more people scramble for cheap college, prices have to rise again, they call for more subsidies and the cycle continues. This is very basic economics here.
Dirge987 2 months ago
@Dirge987
Most studies that looked into college costs found that's literally not the case at all, college was less expensive because there was no expense, period. It was funded by the government. The very existence of an "expensive" to students was introduced by tuition and privatization.
No it didn't at full employment almost every college grad had a job.
It's a non-point because nothing is 100% efficient.
AndroidPolitician 2 months ago
@AndroidPolitician You'll have to show me these studies because college tuition was not entirely paid for by the government in the early 20th century. Never have I seen anywhere that says college had no expense. You'll have to back that up with some sources.
Dirge987 2 months ago
@AndroidPolitician "No it didn't at full employment almost every college grad had a job."
Please give sources, and I have to ask: what KIND of job? A college grad working at McDonalds is not unemployed, but underemployed, which is not represented in such employment rates. And that's the problem, degree saturation doesn't mean college grads can't get a job, it's that they can't get a job in their field because labor in that field has been flooded.
Dirge987 2 months ago
@Dirge987
The study is right in the video description as is what happens to supply and demand curves because of subsidies.
You point was unemployment, in the late 90s when there was full employment college grads were just like everyone else. If your point was correct there would of been some horrible mismatch of highly unemployed grads while there was 4% total unemployment.
(Cont.)
AndroidPolitician 2 months ago
@AndroidPolitician You are not reading what I'm writing. My main point was not unemployment, but that subsidies cost more overall then the original price. As I said, for the government to subsidize $.50 of a candy bar, the government must print, tax, or go into debt for more than $.50. It means the total cost of the subsidies is more than what the price was before. Subsidizing therefore creates a net loss and serves only to shift the burden around to more people.
Dirge987 2 months ago
@Dirge987
Your main point is wrong both economically and logically, economically subsidies create multiplier effects which end up priming the overall economy and creating more revenue and logically (which I've said over and over again) spending and taxes are not equal (<---- did you catch that? they aren't equal).
Your taxes did not increase the day the stimulus took effect and not every person that pays for a $.50 candy bar gets a tax increase equal on the same day.
AndroidPolitician 2 months ago
@AndroidPolitician Government stimulus just doesn't work. Economies are organic, they do not need to be primed. This whole idea that subsidies create a positive net gain or create massive multiplier effects are just Keynesian shortsightedness without looking at the long term.
Reducing the price of a good by subsidizing it might have short term gains but long term debt, inflation, taxes, whatever is used to pay, is far higher than the reduction in price. That is just a fact of things work.
Dirge987 1 month ago
@Dirge987
Stimulus has shown to work for about 80 years of economic research and agreed to exist basically by everyone except Austrians.
Generally yes but you're talking about an immediate reward that's paid off over decades which is so obvious a benefit it's amazing your still arguing over it.
Like are you against mortgages because people don't immediately put down $200k in a single day?
AndroidPolitician 1 month ago
@AndroidPolitician It's agreed on by the Keynesians because the mindset is shortsighted and doesn't differentiate productive spending from nonproductive spending, i.e. accepting the broken window fallacy. The result of Keynesian manipulation, government spending, and the failure of stimulus is self-evident in the economic crisis.
Dirge987 1 month ago
@Dirge987
Uh it's been proven and agreed by people other than Keynesians like monetarists. It's so "self-evident" that like a dozen studies show that the stimulus reduced unemployment by millions.
Someone paying taxes for a decade for an immediate reward is better than laying down $200k immediately.
The point about interest is a good one because the vast majority of the interest on the debt is back to ourselves.
AndroidPolitician 1 month ago
@AndroidPolitician Stimulus spending (like any government spending) is only self-evident to those within the political establishment. Keynes' ideas are popular simply because it strung a chord with politicians, so of course politics and Keynesian economics are going to gravitate together. The fact is that the stimulus spending did not work, and the only concession they Keynesians have is that it would have been worse otherwise - a claim that cannot be proven.
Dirge987 1 month ago
@AndroidPolitician I don't dispute that stimulus spending will give a boon to the economy, but it will only ever be in the short run. Charging everything on a credit card will give you vast amounts of wealth, but only in the immediate present.
That's fundamental problem with government stimulus and subsidies. They alleviate the symptoms temporarily but prolong the disease. The stimulus therefore did not fix anything, but it pushed our problems into the future and made them worse from interest.
Dirge987 1 month ago
@Dirge987
Well first I meant in the sense of researchers not just politicians and secondly without stimulus you wouldn't be able to cut spending in the long term. With austerity your debt still increases because the economy becomes worse off which leads to a shrinking tax base so it's impossible to cut your way out of a recession.
In terms of "interest on the debt" where does that interest go? Some of it goes to China etc. but most of it goes back to American's pockets.
AndroidPolitician 1 month ago
@AndroidPolitician Oh my! Govt spending (stimulus) must be paid for somehow. There is no way the Govt can get money without a negative consequence. So to "stimulate' the economy, which is easy to observe, the negative consequence is hard to observe. Just because its hard doesnt mean it doesnt exist. If you tax me more, I cant tip the strippers as much, nor get lap dances. That harms their little bastards. You must hate babies.
luvcheney1 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AndroidPolitician Oh my! Govt spending (stimulus) must be paid for somehow. There is no way the Govt can get money without a negative consequence. So to "stimulate' the economy, which is easy to observe, the negative consequence is hard to observe. Just because its hard doesnt mean it doesnt exist. If you tax me more, I cant tip the strippers as much, nor get lap dances. That harms their little bastards. You must hate babies.
luvcheney1 1 month ago
@AndroidPolitician "In terms of "interest on the debt" where does that interest go? Some of it goes to China etc. but most of it goes back to American's pockets."
That has to be one of the more retarded statements I've sen. So Americans get part of their money back and supposedly somehow that's supposed to magically create a net gain? Last I checked, going into debt to yourself didn't make you any wealthier. Actually it does the opposite. And I think you need to brush up on the term "debt".
Dirge987 1 month ago
@Dirge987
It does create a net gain, look at the bond repayments after WWI and you "yourself" are a person, not a country.
You didn't answer the point about austerity, it creates a paradox, if you cut spending you harm the economy and diminish the tax base which results in more debt. It's what happened with Hoover, FDR in 1937 and right now if we cut spending.
AndroidPolitician 1 month ago
@AndroidPolitician Where does Govt get the money to spend, without a corresponding negative effect? Corn is expressed on our commodity markets at the gulf of Mexico. It is an international commodity, as is oil, gold, silver, soybeans, etc. Transportation may affect values slightly, and Mexico has price controls, subsidizing tortillas lower, but these are minor. The US subsidizes the producer, increasing world supplies, and ethanol, increasing demand, but its international
luvcheney1 1 month ago
@luvcheney1
The recent spike in corn prices is because speculation and is a new phenomenon, even still and prior, prices are at an all time low and it's because of subsidies.
AndroidPolitician 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AndroidPolitician Chicago Board of Trade Corn was about 250 mid 2006, about 260 mid 2002, and about 625 in 2008, and 610 now. You said, "prices are at an all time low and it's because of subsidies". BS! Speculators? They just anticipate changes in market forces. Price allocates commodities. Someone must take action to keep market in balance, at equilibrium. If supply is to decrease, or demand increase, prices must rise, to encourage producing more, and using less.
luvcheney1 1 month ago
@AndroidPolitician Austerity doesn't create a paradox. The private economy grows by itself, it is not an engine that can stall or needs to be tweaked or stimulated. Producers produce, entrepreneurs create, consumers consume, investors invest, demands are met. Government comes in and takes its cut and diverts resources to whatever it wants, much of it being unproductive. The higher tax and spending goes the worse the economy is because once productive resources are diverted to unproductive ends.
Dirge987 1 month ago
@AndroidPolitician The idea that cutting spending hurts the economy has been debunked over an over. Even today countries that have cut spending, like Canada, have mostly recovered from the recession, while the US continues to spend and continues to fall. If you think it's bad now, just wait.
Dirge987 1 month ago
@AndroidPolitician Government spending, by its nature, is unproductive in comparison to the usual action of the economy. If prices are high, firms try to cut them so they can get more customers. Government coming in and subsidizing the price does not have a net stimulative effect but a depressive one that is passed onto the economy as a whole, which also means it is rarely felt by lone single consumer. However enough subsidies and spending makes the trend noticeable; now it definitely is.
Dirge987 1 month ago
@Dirge987
No it hasn't at all, it's shown the opposite, cutting spending in places like the UK, Ireland, Latvia etc. has worsened unemployment and resulted in diminished taxes and thus higher debt (as it has historically).
So you're saying the 0.001% in taxes that goes to subsidize X that results in a reduced price of say 10% is a net loss? Even overtime it's still an obvious gain.
AndroidPolitician 1 month ago
@AndroidPolitician But it's not 0.001% in taxes, and even if it were 10% gain it is only a gain right now. That and the government is not a magician. It cannot magically make something cheaper by spending less than the difference.
Every dollar the government spends is a dollar taken from the private economy, or a dollar + interest that will be taken out of the private economy at a later date. That, by it's nature is wasteful. You are looking present gains and ignoring larger future losses.
Dirge987 1 month ago
@AndroidPolitician Actually austerity plans do work. The US depression of 1920-1921 was worse than the "great" depression and lasted less than a year because of austerity measures. Austerity measures made the US economy bounce back after WW2, since it was the Keynesians who cried havoc and demanded that we keep making ships for a war we weren't fighting. Canada has bounced back because of its austerity measures. UK, Ireland, etc are collapsing BECAUSE government spending as passed the threshold.
Dirge987 1 month ago
@AndroidPolitician The problem with bad economists and most people in general is that they do not look beyond the single result. They notice the immediate benefit but they do not notice displaced harm. Yes corn prices are lower, but rarely do people notice the cumulative, dispersed effects, let alone future outcomes of those actions. Taking it all on aggregate, the result is a net loss. Govt. spending is a means to and end, and if the end is productive use of resources, then it fails hands down.
Dirge987 1 month ago
@AndroidPolitician And that's what bad economists don't get: they don't consider the side effects or unintended consequences further along the road. Corn subsidies make prices lower, but there is additional cost from the consumer in the form of taxes both to them and their employer, either in the immediate present or in the future, which makes them pay far more in the long run. The same applies for college education, gasoline, etc. I suggest reading Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt.
Dirge987 1 month ago
@AndroidPolitician Buying a ton of goods on a credit card and paying it back, plus interest, at a later date is less cost effective than paying for things as you go. That is the problem with subsidies. They lower the prices right off the bat, but the costs are paid in the future and they are much higher than the good otherwise. If you think that strategy is in any way more efficient then you probably need to listen to those Austrians.
Dirge987 1 month ago
@AndroidPolitician "It's a non-point because nothing is 100% efficient."
No it IS a point, you're just ignoring it. You say that government subsidizes something and makes it cheaper, but you are not considering the seen vs the unseen. Because, as you just admitted, government is not 100% efficient, the money taken to subsidize something needs to be GREATER than the price reduced. Since that money is taken in taxes, created by printing or deficit spending, then there is a NET LOSS to consumers.
Dirge987 2 months ago
@Dirge987
(Cont.)
First of all nothing is 100% efficient but your conflating "inefficiency" in bureaucracy in administrating benefits (which is orders of magnitude far away from being costlier then the benefits) and taxes used to pay for them which I already addressed numerous times.
By your logic if someone bought a house they have to pay down $200k immediately and the cost outweighs the benefit of buying a house.
AndroidPolitician 2 months ago
@AndroidPolitician If someone bought a house for $200k then it is their own cost to pay, and whether they benefit or not is subjective but it is ultimately their choice. However if the government subsidizes the cost the buyer will pay for the house at $100k, but the money paid by the government will be some number (depending on method) greater than $100k (because as you said it is not 100% efficient), thereby artificially increasing the price of the good higher than it would be otherwise.
Dirge987 2 months ago
@Dirge987 "thereby artificially increasing the price of the good higher than it would be otherwise."
Sorry, I meant cost of the good not price of the good.
Dirge987 2 months ago
@Dirge987
(Cont.)
The point of the metaphor was the home loan was government spending, if someone buys a house they don't immediately contract by $200k.
And here's a simple hint, programs aren't 100% efficient but the cost of administration is included in their provisions, you have to be crazy to think somehow for 200 years the costs of bureaucracy weren't included let alone over the program.
AndroidPolitician 2 months ago
@AndroidPolitician Yes the cost of administration is included in the provisions which is why the provisions have to be MORE than the reduction in price. This is NOT hard to understand at all.
To reduce something by $100k requires MORE THAN $100k to achieve, meaning all of us as consumers, some how, some way, will always pay more for something than if the subsidies weren't there. The only reason why we don't see it right now is because it has all been charged to the government's debt.
Dirge987 1 month ago
@AndroidPolitician And you did not respond to my point on the price with supply and demand curves. You are not convincing me here...
Dirge987 2 months ago
@AndroidPolitician Actually degree saturation was happening way before the recession. The high number of people with degrees overshot market demand because, again, government encouraged and supported people going to college.
Dirge987 2 months ago
@AndroidPolitician And you didn't address the point that government is not 100% efficient in subsidizing. Do you think there is a net gain by taxing, going into debt, or printing money in order to cut the price of something in the market?
Dirge987 2 months ago
@AndroidPolitician Not only that, but because the price was artificially low for a time, and since demand was artificially increased, it released far more people with college degrees into a labor market that didn't have the jobs to sustain them. Because now the labor markets are saturated with people holding college degrees, most of them can't find work in their field and must get entry level positions elsewhere, wasting their degree, time, and money, and crowding out people without degrees.
Dirge987 2 months ago
@AndroidPolitician If a candy bar is normally $1.00, and the government subsidizes it, causing the price to go down to $.50, but they take $.60 from me to pay for it, then am I really paying less?
Not to mention that prices are a feedback mechanism to consumers and investors. If the price is artificially manipulated, it sends distortions throughout the market, and you can see that very thing with your example of corn subsidies causing high fructose corn syrup to dominate as a sweetener.
Dirge987 2 months ago
@AndroidPolitician Low corn prices? I dont get your point here.
luvcheney1 1 month ago
@luvcheney1
The US has some of the lowest prices of corn on the planet because of massive subsidies.
AndroidPolitician 1 month ago
@AndroidPolitician Corn is just a commodity, and world prices reflect US prices. Transportation of course enters in, but the rise in grain prices has been felt all over the world, in corn, soybeans and other crops. 2 points: Prices for sale in US are reflected everywhere. Corn specifically have risen massively, ethanol being one of the reasons. Acres being diverted from other uses to corn lifts other prices as well.
luvcheney1 1 month ago
@luvcheney1
The US still has overwhelmingly cheaper corn prices than countries that don't have subsidies and that's actually reflected with a global increase because of ethanol since countries like Mexico have been struggling with corn.
AndroidPolitician 1 month ago
@AndroidPolitician Take a look at a chart of corn, over the last 10 years. I guess you think each country has its own oil price? Gold price? Silver? Soybeans? Cotton? Copper? Not much into commodity investing, are you slick?
luvcheney1 1 month ago
@luvcheney1
Take a look at the price of corn in the US compared to anywhere else on planet earth.
AndroidPolitician 1 month ago
@AndroidPolitician - It is perfectly relevant given the fact that it takes away incentives for colleges to lower tuition in the first place.
StateExempt 1 month ago
This video reminds me of a magazine article I read about 4 years ago that bragged that the Recession was over.
I also remember reading an article that same year that NAFTA was a complete success and that our economy was not harmed one bit because of it.
flammamancer 2 months ago
@flammamancer
Well this comment reminds me of how people were predicting hyperinflation in 2010.
AndroidPolitician 2 months ago
How can you say that subsidies reduce prices through supply and demand? If you decrease the cost customers have to pay, by subsidizing, then you will increase demand. It doesn't matter to the end customer that the unsubsidized price is higher than what they are paying; that does not figure into their decision.
shmeebegek1 2 months ago
@shmeebegek1
Because not all of the subsidy magically turns into demand, see link on supply and demand in the video description.
AndroidPolitician 2 months ago
@AndroidPolitician That is a non-answer. There is a certain demand curve for any product or service on the market, and when you lower the price to the consumer, you move along that curve. Are you claiming that the demand curve for college is such that demand decreases as prices go down? That if people only had to pay 1/2 what they do now, for whatever reason, fewer people would go?
shmeebegek1 2 months ago
@shmeebegek1
Obviously demand increases but not enough to catch up with the subsidy which ends up reducing the price lower than the original even with increased demand.
It's not a case were subsidy = demand increase.
Go see the link in description on subsidies and supply and demand.
AndroidPolitician 2 months ago
@AndroidPolitician So why is there a different demand curve from subsidies than from plain old lower prices?
shmeebegek1 2 months ago
@AndroidPolitician So why is there a different demand curve when subsidies are involved? Hard to imagine a chain of causation that would explain such a thing.
shmeebegek1 2 months ago
@shmeebegek1
If by "different demand curve" you mean demand increases then it's like I said, demand goes up but the subsidy is still able to offset it to a point where it's lower than even the original price.
AndroidPolitician 2 months ago
@AndroidPolitician How does a subsidy "offset" demand? Btw sorry for the multiple comments, for some reason my original one didn't show up right away.
shmeebegek1 2 months ago
@shmeebegek1
Because subsidies don't become 100% demand, it's something like 40% of the subsidy becomes demand and the rest just acts as the subsidy.
This is all in my video description link on subsidies.
AndroidPolitician 2 months ago
@AndroidPolitician For what reason? Buying decisions are made by consumers, who do not care whether the price is subsidized. How much they have to pay is determined by how much they have to pay. Now, it is possible that college admissions temporarily suppress demand, but that effect is only short-term, since the incentives are for the colleges to expand (as they are) and get more student capacity.
shmeebegek1 2 months ago
@shmeebegek1
It's a basic macroeconomic rule that not all of the subsidy becomes demand. If it did then there wouldn't be subsidies since all they would do is drive up prices.
AndroidPolitician 2 months ago
@AndroidPolitician That is my point: it does nothing but drive up demand and thus prices. What you are saying is like we are arguing about whether or not the world is round, and I cite the inverse square law for gravity, and show that the world must be round if it follows that law. Then you say: "no, it is a basic rule of science that gravity doesn't follow the inverse square law, because then the world would be round!". You can't use your own argument position as supporting evidence.
shmeebegek1 2 months ago
@shmeebegek1
Well then your point is wrong, and actually you would be the one arguing the world isn't round here, by citing "basic economics".
What actual economics says is about 40% of the subsidy becomes demand and 60% just acts as the subsidy reducing the price lower then it would have been.
Since you probably wont look in the description here's the actual literal basic econ textbook (remove parenthesis).
is(.)gd/0AGk4r
AndroidPolitician 2 months ago
@AndroidPolitician Well, if argument from authority is all you've got, then I guess our conversation is over. Cheers mate.
shmeebegek1 2 months ago
@shmeebegek1
That's not a fallacious use of authority, like if I said smoking causes cancer and pointed to numerous studies apparently you would call that "appeal to authority" because scientists wrote them. Using evidence from people is not inherently argument from authority.
But in case you tapped out all your "econ 101" wisdom cheers.
AndroidPolitician 2 months ago
@AndroidPolitician - What economics - and the study of human nature in general - says is that if someone else foots the bill for a given good or service the person receiving it will not care for the actual cost.
StateExempt 2 months ago
@StateExempt
Go to the link in the description about basic economics and subsidies (only 40% of the subsidy increases demand) instead of using your version of "economics".
AndroidPolitician 2 months ago
@AndroidPolitician - Nothing in it addresses the fact that if financial aid is paying for all your education, the cost becomes irrelevant to the recipient because they are not the ones who must pay for it.
StateExempt 2 months ago
@StateExempt
Well first of all you have to psychotic to think 100% of the bill is subsidized, secondly as it points out the effects of subsidies are 40% increase in price (or demand) and the remaining 60% acting to reduce it lower than the original price.
Seriously you're not brilliantly out thinking hundreds of economists, subsidies reduce prices and that's why their used.
AndroidPolitician 2 months ago
@AndroidPolitician - This is true of every community college (full subsidy) and secondly, if subsidies reduced prices how come the cost of college is nearly ten times what it was in the 70's?
StateExempt 2 months ago
@StateExempt
No it's not very few people get full free rides to college.
The reason is given right in the in the video and you can see the study posted in the description.
AndroidPolitician 2 months ago
@AndroidPolitician - Okay, here is a simple yes or no question. If you are not paying the full cost of something because it has been imposed on other people. are you as likely to care about higher prices on that good?
StateExempt 2 months ago
@StateExempt
Sorry but "you" is not applicable here because this isn't microeconomics "you taking care of your family and buy things" this is macroeconomics and the "you" in this case is about a thousand colleges.
It's been said a million times, the macro effect of subsidies is yes it'll increase the original price by 40% but it'll also decrease it by 60%.
AndroidPolitician 2 months ago
@AndroidPolitician - The same logic applies, the trends of thousands of colleges is nothing more than the sum of individuals. It is a simple yes or no question, are you as likely to care about higher prices if you are not paying the full cost or not?
StateExempt 2 months ago
@StateExempt
It's still not applicable because that would be a subsidy to a seller (the college) whereas this is a subsidy to a buyer (the students and parents).
AndroidPolitician 2 months ago
@AndroidPolitician - Once again you continue to dodge the question. A subsidy to the buyer means they are not paying the full cost of college that they would otherwise have to pay, right?
StateExempt 2 months ago
@StateExempt
Your original question framed the "you" in terms of the college setting the price which is completely inapplicable since it's to the buyer.
But like I said a million times before, subsidies to buyers have the effect of 40% going to increase the price and the other 60% decreasing it.
No amount of microeconomic individualistic "if you get a lower price" rationalizing will change that.
AndroidPolitician 2 months ago