Using the word "liberal" as a pejorative term is the fastest way to get your shit ignored by anyone that matters. Have a good one you, you're a fucknut Schiff.
@goonerLife1: Of course I'm talking about today. Schiff is talking about the impact from the GI Bill on today's college market. No one really cares how the GI bill affected the job market 60 yrs ago. He is talking about how those policies affect today's college market and cost. Who cares today how the GI bill changed college in 1945? No one
@Proemed that statement is true if you're talking about today. not when you talk about the time period schiff was talking about. of course, now the market demands way more specialization and skill
@Traceywithfacey True, of course everyone wants a college education because the pop boom means jobs are more competitive. So the idea was an educated workforce could compete better. Instead the wealthy feel threatened by that and have pushed new grads away in order to hire the rich neighbors kid. But the idea of a smarter work force is able to keep a global advantage is true. U can't do that without educated workforce!
These numbers are absolutely terrifying. I never knew it was that shockingly obvious. The figures about having to work 30 days or whatever to go to Yale for a year seems like a pipe dream. Wow...
@TWSceptic I seriously doubt your in the top 3% that gets the profits from captialism. Sounds like your one of minions of the uber rich that hope they give you something because if they don't you have nothing. Too bad all U ever learned was slogans about isms instead of facts
@rusty614 Free market doesn’t drive down the price in college tuitions. If anything it collectively raises it. College degrees are not interchangeable, there not like a roll of paper, where they’re all the same. Employers consider the school were U were educated more important than what you went to school for. So raising tuition is always possible for highly rated schools. Mediocre schools have to compete for students. Elite schools have of plethora of applicants and don’t need to compete.
@Proemed They have such a plethora because the demand is through the roof. This is a direct cause of the government trying to get as many kids to go to college as possible. Just like Peter was saying, years ago you did not need a college degree, but the government has tried to get every man and his dog to go to make themselves look good
@rsty614 LOL, U answered your own ? in your response to me. A cosigner is just another
way to reduce risk for the bank not the borrower. We’re back to sq 1. I said take away govt backed loans and banks won’t loan to non wealthy. U respond with use a cosigner. Well guess what, then that cosigner must qualify to be able to payback the loan because that is the whole reason why you need a cosigner. So once again poor ppl can’t cosign. Poor ppl don’t have wealthy cosigners.
@DeepDiagnostic Your responses are perfect. Not only do they demonstrate how little U understand about education. They are great example of how you can't even write to a topic. The video is not about the oil problem its about the investment in Educ. But since you can't follow that you change topics because your delusional! Learn to write a paragraph. Take English 1 in college!
universities should be taking students not on their ability to pay the highest acceptable price, they should be taking students on their academic potential, character, potential to contribute to the school environment, etc. I can see your point on how government programs contributed to the rising cost in college education. Don't forget that the college are taking advantage of of the students and the loans. Don't ignore their greedy behavior as something that cannot be dealt with.
why is there an assumption that students couldn't get loans if they weren't government backed? How else would a student build credit if they were never allowed to get a loan of any kind let alone a really low interest student loan. Also how come public universities have such a lower tuition than private for profit universities, shouldn't the free market drive down the prices to match the public universities?
@rsty614 Because banks would never lend tuition money, in the amounts now used, to students that have no equity. Its that simple. They loan money to people who they know can pay it back, not who think they can because they might get a job in a field their not currently working in. Banks don't make risk like that!
@Proemed Based on your assumption, why is a public university half as expensive as a private university? if the government is guaranteeing some of the loans their incentive would be to match private college prices that people are already paying for
What I don't get is how simple this point really is. Its 2+2 WTF!?!?!?!?!?! I'm a student quit guaranteeing my debt!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Common Fing sense.
Spot on! It just blows my mind that anyone could endorse things like the Pell grant or guaranteed student loans. These programs have literally ruined the education industry, causing people to depend on the government to help them out with their inflated tuition bills. Unbelievable!
Here is the website showing income makes a big difference in college completion rates: Go here to see the graph: flowingdata.com2009slash09slash01slashlow-income-hinders-college-attendance-even-for-top-students
You dolt....if you even looked at what i wrote i was replying to your comment about the tripling in oil demand. I was not at all replying to your comments about college tuition. Get off your high horse and pay attention!! And what's this about my idea "for the gifted". I didn't mention anything about that. Looks like you need to be taking meds. I wanna see you on this post apologizing for your remarks when this student loan bubble that is brewing up bursts.
And who the fuck cares about who completes college. The whole point of this vid was to point out how government intervention in facet of economic activity results in disaster. Easy money loans caused the great depression, easy money mortgages caused the housing bubble and great recession, and easy money student loans are absolutely no different. If you want to pretend the government isn't responsible, that's fine, but there is a bubble.
@Deep Even if you gave the High School grad 2 weeks he still would not be able to produce. So a half priced high school grad is just a slower waste of money!
@Deep Peter’s plan as to how to get hired out of High school, over a college grad, is ludicrous! No one hires a high school grad for ½ the money of a college grad for a reason. They need a skill set! You think you can hire a high school grad and say here design a working digital circuit to do something and expect it done next week? A high school grad, even a bright one, would not know what to do. That is what they expect an Electrical Engineering college grad to do week 1.
@Deep Family income is a very important factor in determining who can finish college. A high scoring low income student completes college less than a low scoring wealthy student. So your idea of chances for the “gifted” is the exception not the rule! More than half of well off students get a college degree and only 8% of low income students get that degree. Your still trying to make believe income is not a factor?
@Deep The Federal Reserve and the Gold Standard etc have very, very little to do with colleges, what they teach, and how well they prepare their product, students, to enter the work force and payback their student loans. Stay on topic and take your meds, because your off the wall here. Also, I did find a website that verifies what I told you the 1st time.
@Deepgnostic Nothing of what you wrote is even remotely considered when college admin layout course curriculum, or cost or future planning. They don't sit around and say if we had a dime in 1965 it would now be worth $5. You bringing in all the extraneous BS instead of talking directly about what colleges do. Probably because you don't seem to have a lot of experience with colleges in what they teach or charge or expect. None of this fiscal babble involves college's mission statement. Cont
If schools lost the student loan program they would just adjust by massive layoffs and expense cutting while remarketing their instruction to the wealthier clientele. Its already happened in the foreign medical school market. You probably didn't know that. The schools did not cut their staffs salaries and offer the same product like you predict in your video. Instead they found loans that people had to qualify for based on their present net worth. So they now only look at wealthier applicants.
Are you really trying to imply that if the student loan program ended the same percentage of middle class and lower class student would be able to attend as with a student loan program? Because that was discredited years ago. BTW to lie means I am trying to intentionally deceive you and that's not true. So your claiming I'm lying is a lie.
Who told you college is accessible to everyone based on being "gifted", Eric Cantor? 1st off full scholarships are extremely rare. Most scholarships are for appearance sake, and not meant to cover the real cost of school. Colleges compete on cost as a last thing. The major selling point of any college is its reputation. Even a college major is less influential on gauging success verses the name of the college. I know this 1st hand.
You keep on insisting that the free market makes business always compete. You must be a Repub, because they are the only ones that believe that. The oil industry is a good example of how that isn't true. Did the cost of refining oil multiply or triple over days? Did we wake up one morning and triple demand? Of course not! Instead of competition creating the lowest price oil companies and other industries cooperate on setting prices to what the market will bare.
@Proemed No demand did not triple...but no ones talks about the real cause..The Federal Reserve, Monetizing debt, The Fed buying printing money to buy treasury bonds, and rather than the People paying Gov't with higher taxes we're paying the gov't with more expensive gas, food, etc. If u think about oil prices in terms of silver, they're plunging not rising. When the U.S stopped follwing the Constitution in 1971 & abolished the Gold Standard that's when oil prices started to rise.
@Proemed The U.S printed money out of nothing and the dollar lost value and prices responded by rising including gasoline prices. The record low for gasoline was during the Depression in 1931 when it was at 17 cents a gallon. It's CHEAPER NOW!!! If you have a dime was minted before 1965 it's worth 5 Dollars..so that means it's a gallon of gas is worth 8 cents of you have a pre-1965 minted dime. If you have paper money then gas is rising cause it's a Fiat currency
@Deepgnostic Nothing of what you wrote is even remotely considered when college admin layout course curriculum, or cost or future planning. They don't sit around and say if we had a dime in 1965 it would now be worth $5. You bringing in all the extraneous BS instead of talking directly about what colleges do. Probably because you don't seem to have a lot of experience with colleges in what they teach or charge or expect. None of this fiscal babble involves college's mission statement. Cont
Yes, only the rich should go to college! We need more MCDonalds not nano - technology. How else can the rich control the middle class? Save us Schiff instead of trying to make more high tech jobs in the USA lets control the flow of bucks to the middle class. Yes the cost is out of control so why not make the Universities responsible for their placement rate?
@Proemed You seem to ignore his central point, that people WERE able to afford college before government decided to "help people" afford college. Example: in 1960, Penn tuition cost $1,250, that's around $9,100 in 2010.
How much did Penn cost (tuition only) in 2010? $34,868. Yes, Penn's tuition went up 6.88% per year v. a 4% per year inflation. Meanwhile, the performance of colleges have dropped, and kids are graduating w/ worse job prospects than ever. Way to strawman his point.
jrsub3 Obviously I know that! Everything has gone up! What he is ignoring in his argument is this obvious fact that no loan means a tremendous advantage for the wealthy. Cost will not come down because loans go away! Instead marketing for students would focus on the wealthy only. cont...
@Proemed And you're ignoring the central point of the video: by pumping more money into the hands of consumers, prices inevitably go up. There's no need to compete on price.
And once again, you're lying. College was NEVER only accessible to "the rich". The gifted were always able to access college, regardless of income. In 2006 dollars, the average income in the country was $16,000, tuition/avg income was far lower than it is now. (cont)
Once again, instead holding schools responsible for their end product students, they don't worry about placement rates and curriculum. Make them responsible for their product, like everyone else is, and their strategy will change fast. Do what Schiff says and only the rich go to college. We are back to a 2 class society. Schiff fails to acknowledge that point.
@jrsub3 Not to mention your idea that schools would only market to the wealthy is utter bullshit. Schools, like any institution, need revenue, and fostering to just 3% of the population will kill their revenue stream.
Not to mention you fail to acknowledge the role of capital in accountability. In a free market, colleges who don't teach well, and don't perform well, simply will not get students because a kid wouldn't pay to go there. Stop detaching the role of unlimited loans to price inflation
Peter Schiff is the man. That is why I never went to college except for 6 months. When I found out how the system works. I stopped going because colleges are set up like credit card companies. Ways to fuck us and keep you in debt. I've met too many people in my life who makes more than people with BA and yes, Masters Degrees. I may not have a college degree. But at 39, I'm still debt free.
Peter Schiff is the man. That is why I never went to college except for 6 months. When I found out how the system works. I stopped going because colleges are set up like credit card companies. Ways to fuck us and keep you in debt. I've met too many people in my life who makes more than people with BA and yes, Masters Degrees.
@ChaosBlader That's a very small percentage who can get in outside of the establishment. As I mentioned to another poster, middle class families could afford Yale up until a very short time ago. The fact that we've injected the college market with free money is the biggest reason why college is so expensive.
If banks/lenders were uninsured, and forced to ask things like student SAT scores, HS GPA, and intended major, I bet prices would plummet. The students who major in garbage would stop going
What about the cost of energy? The cost of technology? In the 1800s there was no such thing as "medical" school. Not real medical school. There was no real science. What about tuition costs during the 1900s? What about looking at the University costs? There may be more problems than just this simple comparison.
I think it also should be added that it is because of government subsidized loans that a college education has become less valuable. Because there exists all this government money to "help" people pay for college, almost anyone can get a college education. This is great in theory, but now we have a large influx of inner city kids who didn't receive a proper high school education and they are supposed to be able to succeed in college because they have a high school diploma...
I'm not sure if it is just my college, but I know of many students who aren't eligible for government loans. And they just fill the gap between financial aid and tuition with high interest loans. I'm not completely disagreeing with his argument, but I feel that even if all government loans were gone, colleges wouldn't lower their tuition and students would still get loans to make ends meet.
universaties and community collages are all the same in the way that they all require you to pay huge sums of money and end up in debt while the collages both public and private, large and small swim in your money and having a laughing good time in the process.
Yearly tuition at my medical school: 1967 - 1978: c. $750; 1979: $1250; 1980: $2100; 1981: $5400......2009: $36,000. Peter's is absolutely right because I watched over four years how suddenly loans became so easy to get! I bought a new car and paid for it with my loan! And right along with that "easy money" came the collosal tuition increases. Same school, same program, but now, $36000 a year? Whoa! (as Rose Nyland once said.."different on outside, same on inside.")
Also, I work ~15 hrs per week and go to school full time right now, but I will be in debt for decades. I respect my institution, I am getting a lot out of my education, and really do think that the people in charge care about the students, but this is not the way it's supposed to be. I think you are right that the issue is in the economics of the school system. Putting political pressure on schools to lower tuition is not enough, it has to come with economic pressure as well.
You are right, although what you miss in blaming the colleges is that the loans also put pressure on them not to cut costs. Because of these government backed loans students think of college purely as an investment, particularly since they are young and optimistic so approach making the decision in terms of which college offers the most. A college that offers less attracts fewer students.
You are right, although what you miss in blaming the colleges is that the loans also put pressure on them not to cut costs. Because of these government backed loans students think of college purely as an investment, particularly since they are young and optimistic so approach making the decision in terms of which college offers the most. A college that offers less attracts fewer students.
You are right, although what you miss in blaming the colleges is that the loans also put pressure on them not to cut costs. Because of these government backed loans students think of college purely as an investment, particularly since they are young and optimistic so approach making the decision in terms of which college offers the most. A college that offers less attracts fewer students.
When president Bush signed off on couple billion dollar college grant a few years back,
almost overnight colleges all over the country began raising tuition. Virtually wiping it out and making it worthless. Like a giant vac cleaner it sucked that money up.
@YukonBloamie What people should look at is Singapore. They spend between 2-3% of their GDP on healthcare and have risen up to 6th place in WHO ratings. And considering they were backwards swamp land in the 70s and 80s theyve risen up very fast.
Its all down to the market really. The Singaporens save up into a "pot". Everyone is covered by government for serious accidents, but for everything else its market conditions which keeps it cheap for everyone and the best drugs/services win out.
everyone gets an Ipad and free collage and the people at the university get $50k a year and Its cheaper for everyone and plus the government will get their money back because they will make income tax off higher wage educated people
@SirLola666 That is only if the students can find jobs. Remember the whole point of an education is to find a higher paying job;however, if the government subsidies these jobs too heavily i.e. trying to make money off it's student loan programs then the quantity of labor increases dramatically. This becomes a problem if the quantity of labor greatly outgrows the demand for college educated labor. Thus, why a lot of college students now have to go to graduate school to find a job
@SirLola666@SirLola666 That is only if the students can find jobs. Remember the whole point of an education is to find a higher paying job;however, if the government subsidies these jobs too heavily i.e. trying to make money off it's student loan programs then the quantity of labor increases dramatically. This becomes a problem if the quantity of labor greatly outgrows the demand for college educated labor. Thus, why a lot of college students now have to go to graduate school to find a job
Ok, I understand why university costs a bomb. So how would one fix this situation? I'm asking because I am curious, and really have no idea how a regulator or government (or anybody) is able to reduce tuition fees. After all, the government that gets rid of student loans, will most likely get voted out in the next election.
@RTatUTube If you completely remove it there would be a huge uproar as the Universities have become dependent on government backed loans. What can happen though is a government slowly lowers the amount they will guarantee until Universities aren't as dependent on it. I could be wrong but I think right now the government has a blank check in terms of how much they will back up the student loans. It might not be a perfect solution but its the only way I see it working.
Ok, I understand why university costs a bomb. So how would one fix this situation? I'm asking because I am curious, and really have no idea how a regulator or government (or anybody) is able to reduce tuition fees. After all, the government that gets rid of student loans, will most likely get voted out in the next election.
If there were no federal student aid a lot of kids wouldn't be in college right now. Considering how worthless a BA has become, though, that's not a bad thing.
A lot of the GIs whom the GI Bill was written for were conscripts, too, so they were being compensated for time and opportunity costs that were TAKEN from them.
the biggest issue is how government guarantees (and easy credit) drive up the prices on EVERYTHING not just education.
They can charge so much for a new car because people are able to borrow enough money to finance that car. The house I live in was built in 1959. It cost about $50,000 at the time. This same house could sell for 200K easy today. Is the house BETTER today than in 1959? No. They can get away w/ charging 200K for a 50K house cuz people can borrow for it. Burn the banks!
the reason why they had college loans in the first place was because college tuitions were high plus they have alot more expenses they have alot more land that costs alot more than in 1915 also what about the teachers they have to pay them alot more also there is a significant population increace from 1915 to now so more demand
Yes, you had to work while in college instead of doing drugs and partying all the time. Going to college nowadays is useless anyway considering how devalued education became due to the lax standards and bullshit curriculas. It's all part of the instant gratification mantra that rules our societies. Also, your idea about a population increase reflects your lack of understanding of economies of scale and a lot of other things.
@delyshBB well i mean college is useless if you are just going to get your degree for the sake of having a degree if you are learning a skill like accounting or economics
Now we have courses like Feminist studies, multicultural studies, racial studies, queer studies... How advanced must our civilization have become to have the demand for these professions! Lol
He stated that an increase in the usage level of an input (students) will cause the producer's (university's)avg. cost per unit to fall as the scale of output is increased. That is exactly what economies of scale is. The difference here is you don't understand economics nor do these other 13 people liking your post. It is of no surprise you do not bother to actually refute anything his says specifically.
Sorry but he didn't provide anything that showed that education subsidies directly inflates college tuition. Now it may or may have an effect of some sort as suggested but Schiff did not provide anything concrete delineating a direct link.
Given his cultish slavery to a fictional ideology which raises red flags with me I have to question his reasoning.
If you want to find a cult, look at the people who say you can spend your way out of debt. lol. And to any person with some degree of understanding of economics, this will be obvious. When you create artificial demand for a good by removing competition on price, the good gets more expensive. Draw the demand and supply curves and play with them a bit.
to an extent yes, but vouchers are a lot better because, for example, a voucher is $10,000 per semester and what's more is paid by the student, which forces schools to actually provide something for the extra money besides inflated tuitions. also, schools like those in the public education system won't have an advantage of having money given to them just because they're public, but because they have students - it wouldn't matter who owns the school. but this still increases the tuitions.
Compare what happens in the supply and demand curve with government policy regarding the war on drugs. You will see some big time profits made possible by a reduced supply and inelastic demand!
@Rockynurse That's why legalizing drugs is the way to go. And doing away with a lot of regulations about education would increase supply too, but a lot of the demand is artificial anyway.
let govt pump the money into the system and inflate it by stimulation stimulation stimulation. Do we know what happens to over stimulated athelete?.... the athelete is drug adict and will end up unable to perform to his/her original strenth too. The athelete will be admitted for rehab.
What a silly conclusion. In California, we had massive cuts to both loans, and universities, and yes, there was a reaction through staff cuts, but also by increasing tuitions - So the UC's are getting more expensive, not less. It's going to be the local JCC's that end up offering more opportunity to those with less, not the larger public or private institutions. Silly guy.
@jasowong76 well, how are people paying the increased tuition costs? They don't have the income, they are getting it in the form of a tax credit from the government for students attending college or something else.
If the government stops paying for the students tuitions. The universities will either have to reduce tuitions or go out of business. There is no way around it.
It's called supply and demand. Offer something the consumer wants and can afford or go out of business.
Well, actually, they're not. Fewer can go, and they admit more with the capability of paying, and if we're want a society with less class mobility, then loans can go away. Right now, it's loans, or community college. There are fewer loans and tax credits to go around regardless because of the budget. If it were a supply & demand equation, you'd think some private institution would just create a super-efficient university to blow away all the others, wouldn't you?
@jasowong76 well, you would think that, but since they are getting many buyers at the artificial price with government welfare, why would they reduce there prices at this point when the government has created an artificial demand at the artificial price?
They are getting far fewer buyers at an artificial price now, due to budget cuts. It isn't, which is where his argument falls apart. What's happened are fewer loans, higher tuitions, and more pupils per professor. That's what happens when real life hits free market theory in non-commoditized markets.
What is it that you're having an issue with? Yes, the state has a had a massive revenue shortfall, which has forced huge education cuts which has resulted in both staff cuts, reduced state loans and increased tuitions, so those who are worse off are losing the opportunity for higher educations. There was a protest at UC Berkeley last month protesting these cuts. What's so hard to believe here?
@jasowong76 What is hard to believe is that you actually think the government makes things affordable.
The government is a disease in every aspect of the word.
You're claiming the college students are receiving less loans and I'm telling you that they are not, as the colleges are still receiving tons of welfare.
And it is all unconstitutional at the federal level. Please point to exactly where the federal government has any authority whatsoever to legislate on education. They don't. period
No, I'm saying is that his analysis is flawed, and that's proven by CA's broken budget system. State loans are decreasing significantly, and made up at the federal level. I'm not challenging constitutionality at all. I'm challenging that government loans are cost drivers. When loans are cut wealthier students go to college. The other flaw private institutions would step in to provide loans if gov loans went away. That would still drive up the cost of tuition.
Well, so we agree the feds are picking up the slack from the States, so nothing has changed.
And a flaw I find in your statement it private lenders would replace the government, that just doesn't hold water, they would not take on all of that risk, sure, some might still get them , but alot wouldn't qualify.
So, if you don't think loans raise up prices, then how do you explain Yale costing 32 days work for a factory worker around 1900? And now it is 550 days work? What cause it if not loan
Sorry, I misspoke, it's not completely made up by any means at the fed level. In CA, it's far short - that's why students are protesting.
As for Yale, no, I don't think loans are a primary driver of the increase in tuition - but it can create some price distortion. There is a monopoly over a Yale education. Wealth and population have increased 10x, while admission numbers haven't. If government loans went away for Yale, do I think they could still charge 50k a year for 10,000 students?
So you mean people are protesting that their free ride is being taken away?
Well, at least people aren't having as much of their wealth transferred to others now, I say let them protest, and when they are done, they can go and get a job.
People are protesting larger classes, rising tuitions, and overall worse conditions. It's better to have wealth transferred by being born into it, rather than the opportunity to learn and work your way into wealth? I guess we look at things differently.
And it's not just the loans, its all the welfare they receive. Such as regular funding from the budget, just the general fund they receive.
If you give the college let's say, $10 million dollars every year. After a few years, they stop doing any cost reduction methods at all because they government has them backstopped, and you end up with a monster with costs increasing every year, hence higher tuition costs, especially once government welfare stops coming in.
Sure, education has some amount of waste - but so do large corporations. Let's have a counterfactual - assume a world with no government loans - Do yales, harvards etc still exist with 40-50k/year tuition? i think it's fair to say that wouldn't change - maybe they'd use their massive endowments to make education free or whatnot...
See, that is where your analysis if flawed, you say that 50k a year tuition wouldn't change if the demand was dramatically reduced due to no government subsidized loans.
So who is going to pick up the demand for 10k students a year per school? The population can't afford school without grants, loans, etc....
They would have to reduced costs to be able to lower tuition to be able to attract demand for their services.
Just look at what has happened to the auto industry without loans?
The auto industry collapsed - but it hasn't created a wave of cheaper cars.
For 10k students going to top tier schools, the people that can afford to go to those schools can, or would leverage their homes. i know a shocking number of people who have done that (although that's harder to do nowadays).
Well, first off, the auto's are being heavily subsidized right now, so the fact price haven't fallen only reflects that subsidizing them keeps prices high.
And ya, some people would still be going to college with no loans, but only a few, they would have to massively reduce costs.
And people you know now are only leveraging their homes because the government has created an environment where college is unaffordable without government aid.
How do you explain 32 days factory pay paying for Yale?
Silly guy? I suppose you think prescriptions would still be artificially high without medicade and medicare keeping the demand artificially high?
If you cut our medicare and medicade, which is 55% of all healthcare, the prices would have to fall because the demand isn't there for there product, if they continued to try and charge the artificially high price, there inventories would be overflowing because it is unaffordable, they would have to lower prices to move product, same with education.
As for medicare, sure - but would you rather have less research and development into breakthrough drugs? Similarly for education - would you rather have a world without basic research, and breakthroughs like... say, the internet?
Well, see, you fail to understand how markets work.
Without the drug companies being heavily subsidized they would cut costs as well, they would be paying people outragous benefits and pay, etc....and the companies they deal with, would have to lower there prices as well to sell there services to the drug companies.
The whole market would adjust to market conditions. You fail to understand that and seem to think that the drug companies would be paying secretaries 100k a year.
The thing is that basic infrastructure for setup was created by public institutions. The internet, the research at Google, hell, even Yahoo - yes, they all eventually became private institutions - but they started because of public funding. They might not have necessarily come about in the absence of long-term basic, unprofitable research - at least not in the form it is today.
The basic infrastructure of the internet did start as public funding yes, but is was being used by government scientists. It wasn't anything like it is today.
And also, you operate on the assumption that this never would have occurred in the private market. You think that the only reason we have the internet is because of the government.
And also, where in the Constitution does it say the government can create and fund an internet.
Yet another example of the government transferring wealth
Yes, they initially did try to raise tuition to protect salaries and programs;however, in the long run they have to match tuition with what student's can afford to pay or they go broke.
@lostprophet912 Correct. So do you want colleges to become an institution where people have some social mobility and can move up in the world, or where only the rich can afford a good, public education? Because that's the trend in california - tuitions are rising for high demand public schools - pretty much all public colleges.
@lostprophet912 In CA, demand far outstrips supply, so cost are cut and with increasing tuitions - so the quality of education is declining along with increased costs - with no real end in sight. The candidate has oversimplified the market for education as one that's perfectly competitive.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
While he sounds reasonable, he's wrong. The GI Bill did indeed create an American middle class because it created a new class of highly productive workers. Yes, tuitions were lower in days of old, because mostly, it was a low inflation period.
greggfarley, I know your kind. The kind that gets off thinking they're better than other people who don't have a college degree. You people always rigorously defend the college industrial complex to inflate your own ego. "I have a degree and degrees cost a lot of money, therefore I'm worth more than other people". Take that stupid piece of paper with your name on it and shove it up your arse.///This is common sense. But they probably didn't teach you common sense at university, did they?
Yes, I'd like 2 C more people in college - if they want it. Gov prgs are not what's driving costs. Inflation is & schools R 2 admin-heavy. I worked my arse off to pay tuition, all summer long at construction & mfg jobs. There were times when I had three jobs and got by on 4 hours of sleep a day, for weeks at a time. And no, I don't look down on people who don't have degrees. Wisdom rarely comes from schools, it's self taught. & anybody can B educated, degree or no degree, if they seek 2 learn.
Hey Peter. Another aspect to why college tuition is so high is because labor unions obtained legal monopolies over their markets. You can no longer be a doctor on your own. You have to be certified by the AMA. You can no longer be a lawyer on your own. You have to be certified by the ABA. Etc. So not only are they able to overcharge you in getting an education, they are able to overcharge you in the goods and services you receive from the markets the unions have legally monopolized.
You could have used a better job than Ford for your reference to paying for college. It is well known that Ford was willing to pay high wages to keep a higher level of worker. I'm still a huge fan and agree with everything you say, the reference just made your argument seem like your argument was desperate. Other than that, as a student I love everything you've said. SCHIFF FOR PRESIDENT 2012!!!!!
Ideally this makes a lot of sense, but I can't help thinking that top universities will keep their tuition high. The assumption is that no one can afford college without a student loan. This isn't exactly true. There are still a lot of rich people around who can easily foot the bill, and quite a few upper middle class people who can stretch to make it work. Sure, it's not the majority, but it's more than enough to fill UC Berkeley with competent students.
You call European education shitty? Yet the education from Europe is much higher ranked the that of the USA? You're not making any sense.
Most Europeans speak more than 1 language, unlike Americans, so there is nothing wrong with our Education. Harvard hires European professors so they think European education is fine too.
This is false. In European countries the governments also subsidies students and educations costs is extremely low. So you can't blame those programs.
Then why were prices lower before government subsiidies? And can't you say that colleges and businesses have an incentive to up the cost of something if it's a guaranteed pay from the government? Come on now..
and these education institutions are at the mercy of the government for funding...for instance IF the school does not llow army recuiting on its campus...well, your funds are held hostage by the criminals in Washington...the institution better be teaching what these criminals say and follow their agenda and nothing else..the whole education system is broken.
govt throwing cheap money at college education was no different than them throwing cheap money at the housing market. It made prices in both of them rocket.
Using the word "liberal" as a pejorative term is the fastest way to get your shit ignored by anyone that matters. Have a good one you, you're a fucknut Schiff.
inademv 23 hours ago
Comment removed
inademv 23 hours ago
Peter Schiff needs to be treasury secretary if Ron Paul gets elected.
'Nuff said.
Spjungen 1 week ago 2
@goonerLife1: Of course I'm talking about today. Schiff is talking about the impact from the GI Bill on today's college market. No one really cares how the GI bill affected the job market 60 yrs ago. He is talking about how those policies affect today's college market and cost. Who cares today how the GI bill changed college in 1945? No one
Proemed 2 weeks ago
A High school education doesn't prepare anyone for much more than a customer service job.
Proemed 1 month ago
@Proemed that statement is true if you're talking about today. not when you talk about the time period schiff was talking about. of course, now the market demands way more specialization and skill
goonerLIFE1 2 weeks ago
@Traceywithfacey True, of course everyone wants a college education because the pop boom means jobs are more competitive. So the idea was an educated workforce could compete better. Instead the wealthy feel threatened by that and have pushed new grads away in order to hire the rich neighbors kid. But the idea of a smarter work force is able to keep a global advantage is true. U can't do that without educated workforce!
Proemed 1 month ago
These numbers are absolutely terrifying. I never knew it was that shockingly obvious. The figures about having to work 30 days or whatever to go to Yale for a year seems like a pipe dream. Wow...
Tracywithafacey 1 month ago
BTW the video is about college tuition not your political plan. Have you ppl ever been to college?
Proemed 1 month ago
@TWSceptic I seriously doubt your in the top 3% that gets the profits from captialism. Sounds like your one of minions of the uber rich that hope they give you something because if they don't you have nothing. Too bad all U ever learned was slogans about isms instead of facts
Proemed 1 month ago
@rusty614 I guess U think capitalism works for everything. In reality capitalism only works for very few things.
Proemed 1 month ago
@Proemed Capitalism is the basis for prosperity. Socialism is the basis for poverty.
TWSceptic 1 month ago
@rusty614 Free market doesn’t drive down the price in college tuitions. If anything it collectively raises it. College degrees are not interchangeable, there not like a roll of paper, where they’re all the same. Employers consider the school were U were educated more important than what you went to school for. So raising tuition is always possible for highly rated schools. Mediocre schools have to compete for students. Elite schools have of plethora of applicants and don’t need to compete.
Proemed 1 month ago
@Proemed They have such a plethora because the demand is through the roof. This is a direct cause of the government trying to get as many kids to go to college as possible. Just like Peter was saying, years ago you did not need a college degree, but the government has tried to get every man and his dog to go to make themselves look good
Tracywithafacey 1 month ago
@rsty614 LOL, U answered your own ? in your response to me. A cosigner is just another
way to reduce risk for the bank not the borrower. We’re back to sq 1. I said take away govt backed loans and banks won’t loan to non wealthy. U respond with use a cosigner. Well guess what, then that cosigner must qualify to be able to payback the loan because that is the whole reason why you need a cosigner. So once again poor ppl can’t cosign. Poor ppl don’t have wealthy cosigners.
Proemed 1 month ago
@DeepDiagnostic Your responses are perfect. Not only do they demonstrate how little U understand about education. They are great example of how you can't even write to a topic. The video is not about the oil problem its about the investment in Educ. But since you can't follow that you change topics because your delusional! Learn to write a paragraph. Take English 1 in college!
Proemed 2 months ago
universities should be taking students not on their ability to pay the highest acceptable price, they should be taking students on their academic potential, character, potential to contribute to the school environment, etc. I can see your point on how government programs contributed to the rising cost in college education. Don't forget that the college are taking advantage of of the students and the loans. Don't ignore their greedy behavior as something that cannot be dealt with.
Pizack3 2 months ago
why is there an assumption that students couldn't get loans if they weren't government backed? How else would a student build credit if they were never allowed to get a loan of any kind let alone a really low interest student loan. Also how come public universities have such a lower tuition than private for profit universities, shouldn't the free market drive down the prices to match the public universities?
rsty614 2 months ago
@rsty614 Because banks would never lend tuition money, in the amounts now used, to students that have no equity. Its that simple. They loan money to people who they know can pay it back, not who think they can because they might get a job in a field their not currently working in. Banks don't make risk like that!
Proemed 2 months ago
@Proemed you must be living in a pre 1999 world where banks didn't take risks and didn't need to get bailed out because of the risks they took...
Based on your theory Credit Card Companies wouldn't give out student credit cards so students can build credit
Private Loans currently offer very low interest with must lower restraints, all a student needs is a co-signer.
Rent in the 1800s was $4 a month, why has that gone up to $600 a month? Govt. intervention???
rsty614 1 month ago
@Proemed Based on your assumption, why is a public university half as expensive as a private university? if the government is guaranteeing some of the loans their incentive would be to match private college prices that people are already paying for
rsty614 1 month ago
Wow, I never knew this!
ilazernerd 2 months ago
Is it weird if I love you?
thespeltz 2 months ago
What I don't get is how simple this point really is. Its 2+2 WTF!?!?!?!?!?! I'm a student quit guaranteeing my debt!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Common Fing sense.
PaleoAthletics 3 months ago
Spot on! It just blows my mind that anyone could endorse things like the Pell grant or guaranteed student loans. These programs have literally ruined the education industry, causing people to depend on the government to help them out with their inflated tuition bills. Unbelievable!
LacusTheDestroyer 4 months ago 10
This is exactly what i was looking for
michaelpousti 4 months ago
Here is the website showing income makes a big difference in college completion rates: Go here to see the graph: flowingdata.com2009slash09slash01slashlow-income-hinders-college-attendance-even-for-top-students
slash = /
Proemed 4 months ago
@Proemed
You dolt....if you even looked at what i wrote i was replying to your comment about the tripling in oil demand. I was not at all replying to your comments about college tuition. Get off your high horse and pay attention!! And what's this about my idea "for the gifted". I didn't mention anything about that. Looks like you need to be taking meds. I wanna see you on this post apologizing for your remarks when this student loan bubble that is brewing up bursts.
DEEPGNOSTIC 4 months ago
@Proemed
And who the fuck cares about who completes college. The whole point of this vid was to point out how government intervention in facet of economic activity results in disaster. Easy money loans caused the great depression, easy money mortgages caused the housing bubble and great recession, and easy money student loans are absolutely no different. If you want to pretend the government isn't responsible, that's fine, but there is a bubble.
DEEPGNOSTIC 4 months ago
@Proemed
By the way Mr smarts. If you want me to see your post don't use use half my username....use the whole name
DEEPGNOSTIC 4 months ago
@Deep Even if you gave the High School grad 2 weeks he still would not be able to produce. So a half priced high school grad is just a slower waste of money!
Proemed 4 months ago
@Deep Peter’s plan as to how to get hired out of High school, over a college grad, is ludicrous! No one hires a high school grad for ½ the money of a college grad for a reason. They need a skill set! You think you can hire a high school grad and say here design a working digital circuit to do something and expect it done next week? A high school grad, even a bright one, would not know what to do. That is what they expect an Electrical Engineering college grad to do week 1.
Proemed 4 months ago
@Deep Family income is a very important factor in determining who can finish college. A high scoring low income student completes college less than a low scoring wealthy student. So your idea of chances for the “gifted” is the exception not the rule! More than half of well off students get a college degree and only 8% of low income students get that degree. Your still trying to make believe income is not a factor?
Proemed 4 months ago
@Deep The Federal Reserve and the Gold Standard etc have very, very little to do with colleges, what they teach, and how well they prepare their product, students, to enter the work force and payback their student loans. Stay on topic and take your meds, because your off the wall here. Also, I did find a website that verifies what I told you the 1st time.
Proemed 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Deepgnostic Nothing of what you wrote is even remotely considered when college admin layout course curriculum, or cost or future planning. They don't sit around and say if we had a dime in 1965 it would now be worth $5. You bringing in all the extraneous BS instead of talking directly about what colleges do. Probably because you don't seem to have a lot of experience with colleges in what they teach or charge or expect. None of this fiscal babble involves college's mission statement. Cont
Proemed 4 months ago
If schools lost the student loan program they would just adjust by massive layoffs and expense cutting while remarketing their instruction to the wealthier clientele. Its already happened in the foreign medical school market. You probably didn't know that. The schools did not cut their staffs salaries and offer the same product like you predict in your video. Instead they found loans that people had to qualify for based on their present net worth. So they now only look at wealthier applicants.
Proemed 6 months ago
Are you really trying to imply that if the student loan program ended the same percentage of middle class and lower class student would be able to attend as with a student loan program? Because that was discredited years ago. BTW to lie means I am trying to intentionally deceive you and that's not true. So your claiming I'm lying is a lie.
Proemed 6 months ago
Who told you college is accessible to everyone based on being "gifted", Eric Cantor? 1st off full scholarships are extremely rare. Most scholarships are for appearance sake, and not meant to cover the real cost of school. Colleges compete on cost as a last thing. The major selling point of any college is its reputation. Even a college major is less influential on gauging success verses the name of the college. I know this 1st hand.
Proemed 6 months ago
You keep on insisting that the free market makes business always compete. You must be a Repub, because they are the only ones that believe that. The oil industry is a good example of how that isn't true. Did the cost of refining oil multiply or triple over days? Did we wake up one morning and triple demand? Of course not! Instead of competition creating the lowest price oil companies and other industries cooperate on setting prices to what the market will bare.
Proemed 6 months ago
@Proemed No demand did not triple...but no ones talks about the real cause..The Federal Reserve, Monetizing debt, The Fed buying printing money to buy treasury bonds, and rather than the People paying Gov't with higher taxes we're paying the gov't with more expensive gas, food, etc. If u think about oil prices in terms of silver, they're plunging not rising. When the U.S stopped follwing the Constitution in 1971 & abolished the Gold Standard that's when oil prices started to rise.
DEEPGNOSTIC 4 months ago
@Proemed The U.S printed money out of nothing and the dollar lost value and prices responded by rising including gasoline prices. The record low for gasoline was during the Depression in 1931 when it was at 17 cents a gallon. It's CHEAPER NOW!!! If you have a dime was minted before 1965 it's worth 5 Dollars..so that means it's a gallon of gas is worth 8 cents of you have a pre-1965 minted dime. If you have paper money then gas is rising cause it's a Fiat currency
DEEPGNOSTIC 4 months ago
@Deepgnostic Nothing of what you wrote is even remotely considered when college admin layout course curriculum, or cost or future planning. They don't sit around and say if we had a dime in 1965 it would now be worth $5. You bringing in all the extraneous BS instead of talking directly about what colleges do. Probably because you don't seem to have a lot of experience with colleges in what they teach or charge or expect. None of this fiscal babble involves college's mission statement. Cont
Proemed 4 months ago
Yes, only the rich should go to college! We need more MCDonalds not nano - technology. How else can the rich control the middle class? Save us Schiff instead of trying to make more high tech jobs in the USA lets control the flow of bucks to the middle class. Yes the cost is out of control so why not make the Universities responsible for their placement rate?
Proemed 7 months ago
@Proemed You seem to ignore his central point, that people WERE able to afford college before government decided to "help people" afford college. Example: in 1960, Penn tuition cost $1,250, that's around $9,100 in 2010.
How much did Penn cost (tuition only) in 2010? $34,868. Yes, Penn's tuition went up 6.88% per year v. a 4% per year inflation. Meanwhile, the performance of colleges have dropped, and kids are graduating w/ worse job prospects than ever. Way to strawman his point.
jrsub3 6 months ago
jrsub3 Obviously I know that! Everything has gone up! What he is ignoring in his argument is this obvious fact that no loan means a tremendous advantage for the wealthy. Cost will not come down because loans go away! Instead marketing for students would focus on the wealthy only. cont...
Proemed 6 months ago
@Proemed And you're ignoring the central point of the video: by pumping more money into the hands of consumers, prices inevitably go up. There's no need to compete on price.
And once again, you're lying. College was NEVER only accessible to "the rich". The gifted were always able to access college, regardless of income. In 2006 dollars, the average income in the country was $16,000, tuition/avg income was far lower than it is now. (cont)
jrsub3 6 months ago
Once again, instead holding schools responsible for their end product students, they don't worry about placement rates and curriculum. Make them responsible for their product, like everyone else is, and their strategy will change fast. Do what Schiff says and only the rich go to college. We are back to a 2 class society. Schiff fails to acknowledge that point.
Proemed 6 months ago
@jrsub3 Not to mention your idea that schools would only market to the wealthy is utter bullshit. Schools, like any institution, need revenue, and fostering to just 3% of the population will kill their revenue stream.
Not to mention you fail to acknowledge the role of capital in accountability. In a free market, colleges who don't teach well, and don't perform well, simply will not get students because a kid wouldn't pay to go there. Stop detaching the role of unlimited loans to price inflation
jrsub3 6 months ago
he makes it so simple to understand
633390 8 months ago
Peter Schiff is the man. That is why I never went to college except for 6 months. When I found out how the system works. I stopped going because colleges are set up like credit card companies. Ways to fuck us and keep you in debt. I've met too many people in my life who makes more than people with BA and yes, Masters Degrees. I may not have a college degree. But at 39, I'm still debt free.
WilliamHCarney 8 months ago
Peter Schiff is the man. That is why I never went to college except for 6 months. When I found out how the system works. I stopped going because colleges are set up like credit card companies. Ways to fuck us and keep you in debt. I've met too many people in my life who makes more than people with BA and yes, Masters Degrees.
WilliamHCarney 8 months ago
This is the same thing that happens with section 8 housing. It makes the price go up in the whole community for housing.
MarlowGaskin 8 months ago
This is simple, really.
Let's look at 1993, wasn't that when Clinton and the Democrats pushed forward all sorts of lending reform to increase financial aid to students?
In 1992-93, tuition to Yale was $17,500. That's $26,802.13 in 2011.
In 2010-11, it's $38,300.
That's a 2% increase above inflation PER YEAR.
The college loan program has become a tool of the elite. Price smart middle class kids out of Harvard/Yale, maintain the status quo.
jrsub3 9 months ago
@jrsub3 That would be true, except schools like Harvard/Yale let middle class go to college for practically nothing. Just my 2 cents.
ChaosBlader 6 months ago
@ChaosBlader That's a very small percentage who can get in outside of the establishment. As I mentioned to another poster, middle class families could afford Yale up until a very short time ago. The fact that we've injected the college market with free money is the biggest reason why college is so expensive.
If banks/lenders were uninsured, and forced to ask things like student SAT scores, HS GPA, and intended major, I bet prices would plummet. The students who major in garbage would stop going
jrsub3 6 months ago
shut the fuck up, thought u wer gna tell me bout barry university..
here talking bout this and that, homie when u paid like me, what u saying aint nufin but some bulshit...
chapanday 10 months ago
What about the cost of energy? The cost of technology? In the 1800s there was no such thing as "medical" school. Not real medical school. There was no real science. What about tuition costs during the 1900s? What about looking at the University costs? There may be more problems than just this simple comparison.
redblue18700 11 months ago
I think it also should be added that it is because of government subsidized loans that a college education has become less valuable. Because there exists all this government money to "help" people pay for college, almost anyone can get a college education. This is great in theory, but now we have a large influx of inner city kids who didn't receive a proper high school education and they are supposed to be able to succeed in college because they have a high school diploma...
bv41706 11 months ago
i loved this!!! thank u!!! u r a smart man!!
i work full time school full time stil cannot afford college--im exhausted and want to collapse
drmmer101 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
latino wives waiting **rockmycity.info**
carolinrakermns 11 months ago
I'm not sure if it is just my college, but I know of many students who aren't eligible for government loans. And they just fill the gap between financial aid and tuition with high interest loans. I'm not completely disagreeing with his argument, but I feel that even if all government loans were gone, colleges wouldn't lower their tuition and students would still get loans to make ends meet.
PolySquirrel91 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Do you think to marry here you go **rockmycity.info**
seritavanscyocmnh 1 year ago
I am disgusted that any time I try to explain this to most of the people I know they don't care.
Rensune 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Do you think to marry here you go **rockmycity.info**
tatumvitamsd 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Try latin women **busizz4me.info**
mahamayamaliga 1 year ago
I can't debate you sir because I agree with you 100%. Unfortunately you are talking right over the heads of most college grads.
frogsoda 1 year ago
Ron Paul-Peter Schiff for president-vp in 2012
mrearlygold 1 year ago
universaties and community collages are all the same in the way that they all require you to pay huge sums of money and end up in debt while the collages both public and private, large and small swim in your money and having a laughing good time in the process.
Videowatcher198 1 year ago
Comment removed
ellesstee 1 year ago
Comment removed
ellesstee 1 year ago
Yearly tuition at my medical school: 1967 - 1978: c. $750; 1979: $1250; 1980: $2100; 1981: $5400......2009: $36,000. Peter's is absolutely right because I watched over four years how suddenly loans became so easy to get! I bought a new car and paid for it with my loan! And right along with that "easy money" came the collosal tuition increases. Same school, same program, but now, $36000 a year? Whoa! (as Rose Nyland once said.."different on outside, same on inside.")
ellesstee 1 year ago
34 people who dislikes this work for a university.
jsamsonite07 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jsamsonite07
1. You're supposed to say "34 people that watched this work for a university.", because a subtle reference is funnier than a direct one.
2. Even then it's stupid.
myusernameisluc 1 year ago
Also, I work ~15 hrs per week and go to school full time right now, but I will be in debt for decades. I respect my institution, I am getting a lot out of my education, and really do think that the people in charge care about the students, but this is not the way it's supposed to be. I think you are right that the issue is in the economics of the school system. Putting political pressure on schools to lower tuition is not enough, it has to come with economic pressure as well.
solbrigm 1 year ago
You are right, although what you miss in blaming the colleges is that the loans also put pressure on them not to cut costs. Because of these government backed loans students think of college purely as an investment, particularly since they are young and optimistic so approach making the decision in terms of which college offers the most. A college that offers less attracts fewer students.
solbrigm 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You are right, although what you miss in blaming the colleges is that the loans also put pressure on them not to cut costs. Because of these government backed loans students think of college purely as an investment, particularly since they are young and optimistic so approach making the decision in terms of which college offers the most. A college that offers less attracts fewer students.
solbrigm 1 year ago
You are right, although what you miss in blaming the colleges is that the loans also put pressure on them not to cut costs. Because of these government backed loans students think of college purely as an investment, particularly since they are young and optimistic so approach making the decision in terms of which college offers the most. A college that offers less attracts fewer students.
solbrigm 1 year ago
Tell me why the tuition was raised in my college
h22sparkle 1 year ago
When president Bush signed off on couple billion dollar college grant a few years back,
almost overnight colleges all over the country began raising tuition. Virtually wiping it out and making it worthless. Like a giant vac cleaner it sucked that money up.
infidelx1 1 year ago
This sounds an awful lot like what we just did with Health Care.
YukonBloamie 1 year ago
@YukonBloamie What people should look at is Singapore. They spend between 2-3% of their GDP on healthcare and have risen up to 6th place in WHO ratings. And considering they were backwards swamp land in the 70s and 80s theyve risen up very fast.
Its all down to the market really. The Singaporens save up into a "pot". Everyone is covered by government for serious accidents, but for everything else its market conditions which keeps it cheap for everyone and the best drugs/services win out.
NicosMind 1 year ago
This is interesting
pigmydmm 1 year ago
everyone gets an Ipad and free collage and the people at the university get $50k a year and Its cheaper for everyone and plus the government will get their money back because they will make income tax off higher wage educated people
SirLola666 1 year ago
@SirLola666 That is only if the students can find jobs. Remember the whole point of an education is to find a higher paying job;however, if the government subsidies these jobs too heavily i.e. trying to make money off it's student loan programs then the quantity of labor increases dramatically. This becomes a problem if the quantity of labor greatly outgrows the demand for college educated labor. Thus, why a lot of college students now have to go to graduate school to find a job
bpolley0 1 year ago
@SirLola666 @SirLola666 That is only if the students can find jobs. Remember the whole point of an education is to find a higher paying job;however, if the government subsidies these jobs too heavily i.e. trying to make money off it's student loan programs then the quantity of labor increases dramatically. This becomes a problem if the quantity of labor greatly outgrows the demand for college educated labor. Thus, why a lot of college students now have to go to graduate school to find a job
bpolley0 1 year ago
Great job Peter - come back on my show, I'd love to talk about the new financial reforms! :)
stefbot 1 year ago
Ok, I understand why university costs a bomb. So how would one fix this situation? I'm asking because I am curious, and really have no idea how a regulator or government (or anybody) is able to reduce tuition fees. After all, the government that gets rid of student loans, will most likely get voted out in the next election.
RTatUTube 1 year ago
@RTatUTube If you completely remove it there would be a huge uproar as the Universities have become dependent on government backed loans. What can happen though is a government slowly lowers the amount they will guarantee until Universities aren't as dependent on it. I could be wrong but I think right now the government has a blank check in terms of how much they will back up the student loans. It might not be a perfect solution but its the only way I see it working.
mojobo 1 year ago
Ok, I understand why university costs a bomb. So how would one fix this situation? I'm asking because I am curious, and really have no idea how a regulator or government (or anybody) is able to reduce tuition fees. After all, the government that gets rid of student loans, will most likely get voted out in the next election.
RTatUTube 1 year ago
It;s like how health insurance keeps medical expenses high.
canisdormit 1 year ago
If there were no federal student aid a lot of kids wouldn't be in college right now. Considering how worthless a BA has become, though, that's not a bad thing.
CountArtha 1 year ago
If anything, education has diseconomies of scale - hence, the emphasis on keeping class size down.
CountArtha 1 year ago
Just wait and see what happens in the health arena.
Same thing will play out as we see in the Higher Ed. world.
Great video.
sdunn96 1 year ago 2
A lot of the GIs whom the GI Bill was written for were conscripts, too, so they were being compensated for time and opportunity costs that were TAKEN from them.
CountArtha 1 year ago
the biggest issue is how government guarantees (and easy credit) drive up the prices on EVERYTHING not just education.
They can charge so much for a new car because people are able to borrow enough money to finance that car. The house I live in was built in 1959. It cost about $50,000 at the time. This same house could sell for 200K easy today. Is the house BETTER today than in 1959? No. They can get away w/ charging 200K for a 50K house cuz people can borrow for it. Burn the banks!
kellann55 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
This guy is a dick.
odinoneeye 1 year ago
the reason why they had college loans in the first place was because college tuitions were high plus they have alot more expenses they have alot more land that costs alot more than in 1915 also what about the teachers they have to pay them alot more also there is a significant population increace from 1915 to now so more demand
dukee155 1 year ago
Yes, you had to work while in college instead of doing drugs and partying all the time. Going to college nowadays is useless anyway considering how devalued education became due to the lax standards and bullshit curriculas. It's all part of the instant gratification mantra that rules our societies. Also, your idea about a population increase reflects your lack of understanding of economies of scale and a lot of other things.
delyshBB 1 year ago 12
@delyshBB well i mean college is useless if you are just going to get your degree for the sake of having a degree if you are learning a skill like accounting or economics
dukee155 1 year ago
Now we have courses like Feminist studies, multicultural studies, racial studies, queer studies... How advanced must our civilization have become to have the demand for these professions! Lol
truevoice08 1 year ago 2
@delyshBB
He stated that an increase in the usage level of an input (students) will cause the producer's (university's)avg. cost per unit to fall as the scale of output is increased. That is exactly what economies of scale is. The difference here is you don't understand economics nor do these other 13 people liking your post. It is of no surprise you do not bother to actually refute anything his says specifically.
unrealchaos528 9 months ago
Brilliant! Thanks for putting things in perspective!
4734290 1 year ago
Sorry but he didn't provide anything that showed that education subsidies directly inflates college tuition. Now it may or may have an effect of some sort as suggested but Schiff did not provide anything concrete delineating a direct link.
Given his cultish slavery to a fictional ideology which raises red flags with me I have to question his reasoning.
Navywxman 1 year ago
If you want to find a cult, look at the people who say you can spend your way out of debt. lol. And to any person with some degree of understanding of economics, this will be obvious. When you create artificial demand for a good by removing competition on price, the good gets more expensive. Draw the demand and supply curves and play with them a bit.
delyshBB 1 year ago 2
I would guess tuition vouchers have the same effect as government loans. Would you agree?
truevoice08 1 year ago
to an extent yes, but vouchers are a lot better because, for example, a voucher is $10,000 per semester and what's more is paid by the student, which forces schools to actually provide something for the extra money besides inflated tuitions. also, schools like those in the public education system won't have an advantage of having money given to them just because they're public, but because they have students - it wouldn't matter who owns the school. but this still increases the tuitions.
delyshBB 1 year ago
Compare what happens in the supply and demand curve with government policy regarding the war on drugs. You will see some big time profits made possible by a reduced supply and inelastic demand!
Rockynurse 1 year ago
@Rockynurse That's why legalizing drugs is the way to go. And doing away with a lot of regulations about education would increase supply too, but a lot of the demand is artificial anyway.
delyshBB 1 year ago
Wow it was clear as day. Not surprising with you though.
Orionx30 1 year ago
By 2020, it will cost $500,000 to put one student through 4 years of college. Something's gotta gove.
TenderTrap86 2 years ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
Guys this is such a goofy video --- my name is freemoviebonanza , c o m
anthesleomareis1o 2 years ago
That one guy was AFTER you on Face the State.
CountArtha 2 years ago
Anytime government subsidizes anything the cost goes up
jbryant13 2 years ago 15
Well said Peter I couldn't agree more!
busterfairway 2 years ago 4
govt rockets the cost of anything it throws money at
ForTehNguyen 2 years ago 4
100000$ . This is the debt most of the students with 4 yr college degree. For this money one can get 45 years of college education in India.
ur1234562001 2 years ago
let govt pump the money into the system and inflate it by stimulation stimulation stimulation. Do we know what happens to over stimulated athelete?.... the athelete is drug adict and will end up unable to perform to his/her original strenth too. The athelete will be admitted for rehab.
ur1234562001 2 years ago
What a silly conclusion. In California, we had massive cuts to both loans, and universities, and yes, there was a reaction through staff cuts, but also by increasing tuitions - So the UC's are getting more expensive, not less. It's going to be the local JCC's that end up offering more opportunity to those with less, not the larger public or private institutions. Silly guy.
jasowong76 2 years ago
@jasowong76 well, how are people paying the increased tuition costs? They don't have the income, they are getting it in the form of a tax credit from the government for students attending college or something else.
If the government stops paying for the students tuitions. The universities will either have to reduce tuitions or go out of business. There is no way around it.
It's called supply and demand. Offer something the consumer wants and can afford or go out of business.
Bankingcartel 2 years ago
Well, actually, they're not. Fewer can go, and they admit more with the capability of paying, and if we're want a society with less class mobility, then loans can go away. Right now, it's loans, or community college. There are fewer loans and tax credits to go around regardless because of the budget. If it were a supply & demand equation, you'd think some private institution would just create a super-efficient university to blow away all the others, wouldn't you?
jasowong76 2 years ago
@jasowong76 well, you would think that, but since they are getting many buyers at the artificial price with government welfare, why would they reduce there prices at this point when the government has created an artificial demand at the artificial price?
Bankingcartel 2 years ago
They are getting far fewer buyers at an artificial price now, due to budget cuts. It isn't, which is where his argument falls apart. What's happened are fewer loans, higher tuitions, and more pupils per professor. That's what happens when real life hits free market theory in non-commoditized markets.
jasowong76 2 years ago
@jasowong76 oh, so exactly who has cut the budget? The State? The feds have doled out massive monies in the stimulus to colleges.
Hell, go look at Obama's campaign contributions, his #1 funder was a college in California.
Don't feed me this shit, the feds are still pumping money into these schools. They just gave like 50 million to a college in my state.
Bankingcartel 2 years ago
What is it that you're having an issue with? Yes, the state has a had a massive revenue shortfall, which has forced huge education cuts which has resulted in both staff cuts, reduced state loans and increased tuitions, so those who are worse off are losing the opportunity for higher educations. There was a protest at UC Berkeley last month protesting these cuts. What's so hard to believe here?
jasowong76 2 years ago
@jasowong76 What is hard to believe is that you actually think the government makes things affordable.
The government is a disease in every aspect of the word.
You're claiming the college students are receiving less loans and I'm telling you that they are not, as the colleges are still receiving tons of welfare.
And it is all unconstitutional at the federal level. Please point to exactly where the federal government has any authority whatsoever to legislate on education. They don't. period
Bankingcartel 2 years ago
No, I'm saying is that his analysis is flawed, and that's proven by CA's broken budget system. State loans are decreasing significantly, and made up at the federal level. I'm not challenging constitutionality at all. I'm challenging that government loans are cost drivers. When loans are cut wealthier students go to college. The other flaw private institutions would step in to provide loans if gov loans went away. That would still drive up the cost of tuition.
jasowong76 2 years ago
Well, so we agree the feds are picking up the slack from the States, so nothing has changed.
And a flaw I find in your statement it private lenders would replace the government, that just doesn't hold water, they would not take on all of that risk, sure, some might still get them , but alot wouldn't qualify.
So, if you don't think loans raise up prices, then how do you explain Yale costing 32 days work for a factory worker around 1900? And now it is 550 days work? What cause it if not loan
Bankingcartel 2 years ago
Sorry, I misspoke, it's not completely made up by any means at the fed level. In CA, it's far short - that's why students are protesting.
As for Yale, no, I don't think loans are a primary driver of the increase in tuition - but it can create some price distortion. There is a monopoly over a Yale education. Wealth and population have increased 10x, while admission numbers haven't. If government loans went away for Yale, do I think they could still charge 50k a year for 10,000 students?
jasowong76 2 years ago
So you mean people are protesting that their free ride is being taken away?
Well, at least people aren't having as much of their wealth transferred to others now, I say let them protest, and when they are done, they can go and get a job.
Bankingcartel 2 years ago
People are protesting larger classes, rising tuitions, and overall worse conditions. It's better to have wealth transferred by being born into it, rather than the opportunity to learn and work your way into wealth? I guess we look at things differently.
jasowong76 2 years ago
And it's not just the loans, its all the welfare they receive. Such as regular funding from the budget, just the general fund they receive.
If you give the college let's say, $10 million dollars every year. After a few years, they stop doing any cost reduction methods at all because they government has them backstopped, and you end up with a monster with costs increasing every year, hence higher tuition costs, especially once government welfare stops coming in.
Bankingcartel 2 years ago
Sure, education has some amount of waste - but so do large corporations. Let's have a counterfactual - assume a world with no government loans - Do yales, harvards etc still exist with 40-50k/year tuition? i think it's fair to say that wouldn't change - maybe they'd use their massive endowments to make education free or whatnot...
jasowong76 2 years ago
See, that is where your analysis if flawed, you say that 50k a year tuition wouldn't change if the demand was dramatically reduced due to no government subsidized loans.
So who is going to pick up the demand for 10k students a year per school? The population can't afford school without grants, loans, etc....
They would have to reduced costs to be able to lower tuition to be able to attract demand for their services.
Just look at what has happened to the auto industry without loans?
Bankingcartel 2 years ago
The auto industry collapsed - but it hasn't created a wave of cheaper cars.
For 10k students going to top tier schools, the people that can afford to go to those schools can, or would leverage their homes. i know a shocking number of people who have done that (although that's harder to do nowadays).
jasowong76 2 years ago
Well, first off, the auto's are being heavily subsidized right now, so the fact price haven't fallen only reflects that subsidizing them keeps prices high.
And ya, some people would still be going to college with no loans, but only a few, they would have to massively reduce costs.
And people you know now are only leveraging their homes because the government has created an environment where college is unaffordable without government aid.
How do you explain 32 days factory pay paying for Yale?
Bankingcartel 2 years ago
@jasowong76 and, I guarantee and loans the budget for California cut, the budget in Washington picked up.
Bankingcartel 2 years ago
Silly guy? I suppose you think prescriptions would still be artificially high without medicade and medicare keeping the demand artificially high?
If you cut our medicare and medicade, which is 55% of all healthcare, the prices would have to fall because the demand isn't there for there product, if they continued to try and charge the artificially high price, there inventories would be overflowing because it is unaffordable, they would have to lower prices to move product, same with education.
Bankingcartel 2 years ago
As for medicare, sure - but would you rather have less research and development into breakthrough drugs? Similarly for education - would you rather have a world without basic research, and breakthroughs like... say, the internet?
jasowong76 2 years ago
Well, see, you fail to understand how markets work.
Without the drug companies being heavily subsidized they would cut costs as well, they would be paying people outragous benefits and pay, etc....and the companies they deal with, would have to lower there prices as well to sell there services to the drug companies.
The whole market would adjust to market conditions. You fail to understand that and seem to think that the drug companies would be paying secretaries 100k a year.
Bankingcartel 2 years ago
The private market made the internet what it is, not the government.
Bankingcartel 2 years ago 3
The thing is that basic infrastructure for setup was created by public institutions. The internet, the research at Google, hell, even Yahoo - yes, they all eventually became private institutions - but they started because of public funding. They might not have necessarily come about in the absence of long-term basic, unprofitable research - at least not in the form it is today.
jasowong76 2 years ago
The basic infrastructure of the internet did start as public funding yes, but is was being used by government scientists. It wasn't anything like it is today.
And also, you operate on the assumption that this never would have occurred in the private market. You think that the only reason we have the internet is because of the government.
And also, where in the Constitution does it say the government can create and fund an internet.
Yet another example of the government transferring wealth
Bankingcartel 2 years ago
@jasowong76
Yes, they initially did try to raise tuition to protect salaries and programs;however, in the long run they have to match tuition with what student's can afford to pay or they go broke.
lostprophet912 1 year ago
@lostprophet912 Correct. So do you want colleges to become an institution where people have some social mobility and can move up in the world, or where only the rich can afford a good, public education? Because that's the trend in california - tuitions are rising for high demand public schools - pretty much all public colleges.
jasowong76 1 year ago
@jasowong76
Eventually costs would be cut so that more people could afford it. Colleges would suddenly find the middle of the supply and demand curve.
lostprophet912 1 year ago
@lostprophet912 In CA, demand far outstrips supply, so cost are cut and with increasing tuitions - so the quality of education is declining along with increased costs - with no real end in sight. The candidate has oversimplified the market for education as one that's perfectly competitive.
jasowong76 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
While he sounds reasonable, he's wrong. The GI Bill did indeed create an American middle class because it created a new class of highly productive workers. Yes, tuitions were lower in days of old, because mostly, it was a low inflation period.
greggfraley 2 years ago
You still had massive inflation every time there was a war, but costs didn't go up to the levels they are now.
InMooseWeTrust 2 years ago
WW2 did that on its own - we become highly productive becouse of the war not the gi bill
popomp1 2 years ago
greggfarley, I know your kind. The kind that gets off thinking they're better than other people who don't have a college degree. You people always rigorously defend the college industrial complex to inflate your own ego. "I have a degree and degrees cost a lot of money, therefore I'm worth more than other people". Take that stupid piece of paper with your name on it and shove it up your arse.///This is common sense. But they probably didn't teach you common sense at university, did they?
TenderTrap86 2 years ago
Yes, I'd like 2 C more people in college - if they want it. Gov prgs are not what's driving costs. Inflation is & schools R 2 admin-heavy. I worked my arse off to pay tuition, all summer long at construction & mfg jobs. There were times when I had three jobs and got by on 4 hours of sleep a day, for weeks at a time. And no, I don't look down on people who don't have degrees. Wisdom rarely comes from schools, it's self taught. & anybody can B educated, degree or no degree, if they seek 2 learn.
greggfraley 2 years ago
Hey Peter. Another aspect to why college tuition is so high is because labor unions obtained legal monopolies over their markets. You can no longer be a doctor on your own. You have to be certified by the AMA. You can no longer be a lawyer on your own. You have to be certified by the ABA. Etc. So not only are they able to overcharge you in getting an education, they are able to overcharge you in the goods and services you receive from the markets the unions have legally monopolized.
JacobSpinney 2 years ago 2
good point jacob. it's only a free market to those with titles. it totally sucks, because it means i have to go to school for 4 more years now :/
PETER SCHIFF FOR PRESIDENT 20??
pwnttothemax 2 years ago
@JacobSpinney ya, it's basically like a lawyers guild, or a doctors guild, and you can't be in the profession unless you are a member of thier guild.
Bankingcartel 2 years ago
You could have used a better job than Ford for your reference to paying for college. It is well known that Ford was willing to pay high wages to keep a higher level of worker. I'm still a huge fan and agree with everything you say, the reference just made your argument seem like your argument was desperate. Other than that, as a student I love everything you've said. SCHIFF FOR PRESIDENT 2012!!!!!
Tubavault 2 years ago
Ideally this makes a lot of sense, but I can't help thinking that top universities will keep their tuition high. The assumption is that no one can afford college without a student loan. This isn't exactly true. There are still a lot of rich people around who can easily foot the bill, and quite a few upper middle class people who can stretch to make it work. Sure, it's not the majority, but it's more than enough to fill UC Berkeley with competent students.
ShidoDesu 2 years ago
I'm poor, a senior at a public university, and I've worked full time in order to pay for my $3500 / semester tuition.
bcsizemore 2 years ago
Makes total sense.
241Groundhog 2 years ago 2
@ese420homes
You call European education shitty? Yet the education from Europe is much higher ranked the that of the USA? You're not making any sense.
Most Europeans speak more than 1 language, unlike Americans, so there is nothing wrong with our Education. Harvard hires European professors so they think European education is fine too.
( he deleted his comment though )
wcub4 2 years ago
Here, for Bachelor and Master it's only 1650 euro a year. It used to be cheaper.
Only for MBA programs or if you're over 30 years old, the cost are very high. But usually MBA programs are sponsered by a company you work for.
Holland btw.
wcub4 2 years ago
This is false. In European countries the governments also subsidies students and educations costs is extremely low. So you can't blame those programs.
wcub4 2 years ago
education costs are extremely low? Where in europe do you live? The average for one year is 10000 euros.
ogello 2 years ago
Comment removed
ese420homes 2 years ago
@wcub4
Then why were prices lower before government subsiidies? And can't you say that colleges and businesses have an incentive to up the cost of something if it's a guaranteed pay from the government? Come on now..
flashlightbrown 2 years ago
As a student, I couldn't agree more.
tinosnit 2 years ago
and these education institutions are at the mercy of the government for funding...for instance IF the school does not llow army recuiting on its campus...well, your funds are held hostage by the criminals in Washington...the institution better be teaching what these criminals say and follow their agenda and nothing else..the whole education system is broken.
slsmit2 2 years ago 2
govt throwing cheap money at college education was no different than them throwing cheap money at the housing market. It made prices in both of them rocket.
ForTehNguyen 2 years ago 3
Awesome speech, I learn more from Schiff in a You Tube video about economics than I learned in 4 yrs of college.
rayme4raw 2 years ago 21
My sentiments exactly.
sofiamarmeladova 2 years ago
100% agree
progressfreight 2 years ago