Here we have a college student asking him a question about free market interference. Remember the concept of a free market? That is where supply and demand determine price. Goods or services cost a certain amount to produce. A customer wants a good or service and sets a value on that commodity to them. That is what they are willing to pay. When producer and consumer agree, we have a deal. If the producer demands too much, the consumer won't buy. If the consumer won't offer enough in exchange, the producer won't sell.
Eventually supply and demand will move into balance. High priced goods in short supply will drive capital investment into production. Supply will rise and price will go down until the market is satiated or the producer doesn't see potential for reasonable profit.
The student apparently understands that when a third party who neither produces nor consumes will agree to pay the bill, there is no restraint on the consumer to limit prices nor is there constraint on the producer to keep prices within reasonable ranges.
Biden Obfuscates on Tuition Costs
What truly merits my disdain for the vice-President is the rambling, nonsensical, ballet of blather which he emits in an attempt to sound like he's got a clue:
By the way, government subsidies have impacted upon rising tuition costs. It's a conundrum here. But if we went the rate your view of the free market route what we would have done is we would have not of done that. We would not have increased pell grants, for example. And there would be 9 million fewer students in college today.The only reasonable response to a statement like that is, "What???"
And there would be hundreds of thousands and millions of students who would not be in college who don't get Pell grants because there was no ability for them to borrow money through Perkins loans and/or have the tax deduction.
So you are right, in a pure free-market the college tuition would have to be lower because there would be fewer people going to school, they wouldn't have as much coming in. But the end result is we would probably have -- we go for the better part, half a generation, of going 16th in the world maybe down to 20th in the world.
3 comments:
It's the classic market vs management of resources argument and illustrates exactly the difference between the separate centers of gravity of the Republican and Democratic parties. The GOP is a proponent (for the most part) of a market driven economy. The Democratic Party thinks the major role should be played by government. The argument becomes fuzzy because the GOP in fact wants to tinker with the free market, and the Democrats want to modify it, with government help. Who on the GOP side says: Completely unfetter the market? Who on the Democrat side says: Let the government plan the economy? I'm all for NO price supports, no minimum wage, national right-to-work laws, no fiscal suport of industry on the local, state, or federal level. No building of football stadiums with public funds. No sweetheart tax deals. No money flowing to oil companies or farmers. I want FREE markets.
Biden is a buffoon. I have never seen or heard him say one thing to make one stop and think that he is really insightful or smart. He has no major accomplishments in his life, he was a career political critter. His public persona is every bit as dumb as any Republican the libs in and out of the media have portrayed as dumb. The only thing going for him is that the libs in the media are on the same team and carry the water for the DNC.
I would much rather hunt quail or pheasants with Dick Cheney than to have to listen to Joe Biden - did he go to school with those kids in Washington state?
Post a Comment