Democratic House Passes College Cost Reduction Act

[SpicyMcVoodoo]

Originally Posted by Publius

But even if he were talking exclusively about the government, any monetary "loss" by the government shows up in the form of a budget deficit, something which I know you have repeatedly said yourself is a bad thing. Or is it only bad when it is because of programs that you disagree with?

It's bad when the "loss" won't eventually pay for itself, i.e., whether or not it's a good investment or just an expense which does nothing for you.

[Rouger2]

Originally Posted by Publius

Why should the food service industry's profitability come before the nation's access to food products?

Why should the hotel or housing industry's profitability come before the nation's access to housing?

You can put in any industry and ask that question. The answer? Because if it didn't, in the long run our nation would almost certainly be worse off if there was no possibility of profit in the various industries.

If the people did not have access to housing and food you would have to kiss you profits goodbye because you cannot try you self to a system that is not providing the basic services to the people. What works is what is going to be used and the needs of the country and people are what have to be taken care of what ever economic system is used. The big picture.

[thomez]

Originally Posted by Rouger2

I don't think the government loans anybody money it is the private loan companies that loan the money they just guarantee it. and I would think with the lower interest they will be charging and the higher pell grants there will be fewer defaults. If the loan companies are not making enough money you can gaurantee that they will be yelling at the top of their lungs about it.

the federal government has a direct loans program as well

[Publius]

Originally Posted by Rouger2

If the people did not have access to housing and food you would have to kiss you profits goodbye because you cannot try you self to a system that is not providing the basic services to the people. What works is what is going to be used and the needs of the country and people are what have to be taken care of what ever economic system is used. The big picture.

So hypothetically if your employer was losing so much money (for whatever reason) that he could no longer afford to pay you, but still needed you to work for him so that he could provide a product that you feel people NEED, you'd be absolutely willing to work for no profit (pay)? After all, people are what have to be taken care of whatever economic system is used. The big picture.

[thomez]

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

The higher the cost of education, including interest you pay on loans, the more people are deterred from it.

And the evidence shows that as you increase loan caps and grant amounts, the cost of education rises. So we're putting people in more debt at lower interest rates and calling it success.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by Publius

So hypothetically if your employer was losing so much money (for whatever reason) that he could no longer afford to pay you, but still needed you to work for him so that he could provide a product that you feel people NEED, you'd be absolutely willing to work for no profit (pay)? After all, people are what have to be taken care of whatever economic system is used. The big picture.

Nobody is forcing these lenders to give loans away that aren't profitable.

[SpicyMcVoodoo]

Originally Posted by thomez

And the evidence shows that as you increase loan caps and grant amounts, the cost of education rises.

I don't know if I buy that one causes the other. But if that's true, then the whole system is fucked. Oh, well...too many people are going to college anyway.

[Rouger2]

Originally Posted by Publius

So hypothetically if your employer was losing so much money (for whatever reason) that he could no longer afford to pay you, but still needed you to work for him so that he could provide a product that you feel people NEED, you'd be absolutely willing to work for no profit (pay)? After all, people are what have to be taken care of whatever economic system is used. The big picture.

Housing and food are things that I feel people need? I think they are obviously things that people must have absolutely must have to survive. I am not saying they are not being provided for now, but if they were not you can bet we would reach for any life raft, or system that would provide them. You have to go with what works.

[Rouger2]

Originally Posted by thomez

And the evidence shows that as you increase loan caps and grant amounts, the cost of education rises. So we're putting people in more debt at lower interest rates and calling it success.

Since colleges are not part of a competitive capitalistic system they should not be able to set their own prices, and raise their tuition just because aid has gone up.

[thomez]

Originally Posted by Rouger2

Since colleges are not part of a competitive capitalistic system they should not be able to set their own prices, and raise their tuition just because aid has gone up.

they aren't?

I know I looked at the cost of education when I decided on a school, as do millions every year. I went where I got a scholarship and I could make it affordable, also taking into account their academic reputation etc.

[SpicyMcVoodoo]

Originally Posted by Publius

Why should the food service industry's profitability come before the nation's access to food products?

Why should the hotel or housing industry's profitability come before the nation's access to housing?

You can put in any industry and ask that question. The answer? Because if it didn't, in the long run our nation would almost certainly be worse off if there was no possibility of profit in the various industries.

Why should high school access be at the expense of the private school industry and high school loan lenders? Well, if parents all had to pay for their kids' high school, then what would happen? Parents would have to start taking loans out the ass to pay for high school, then the kids would have to start taking loans for college. Of course, then there's housing...got to take out a big loan for that.
Okay, now what about medical care? Let's make that completely private too, so that whenever you become seriously ill, you take on tens of thousands in debt. We'll consider that a loan as well.

Shit, why stop there. Let's make elementary and middle school private too! Yay! This way everyone can be up to their ass in debt as soon as they exit the womb, and then they can work the rest of their lives to pay it off! This is a glorious libertarian nation! It'll be filled with mostly wage slaves toiling to pay off their debts, with a few owners at the top sitting pretty. Obviously, that wouldn't turn out very well. That's how communist revolutions happen.

[Publius]

Originally Posted by Rouger2

Housing and food are things that I feel people need? I think they are obviously things that people must have absolutely must have to survive. I am not saying they are not being provided for now, but if they were not you can bet we would reach for any life raft, or system that would provide them. You have to go with what works.

That's nice ... Would you go back and answer the question I posed in that post now please? If you believed the product/service you provided was something people absolutely needed, but your boss said he could no longer pay you to provide that product/service, would you continue working for him without profit (pay)?

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

Why should high school access be at the expense of the private school industry and high school loan lenders? Well, if parents all had to pay for their kids' high school, then what would happen? Parents would have to start taking loans out the ass to pay for high school, then the kids would have to start taking loans for college. Of course, then there's housing...got to take out a big loan for that.
Okay, now what about medical care? Let's make that completely private too, so that whenever you become seriously ill, you take on tens of thousands in debt. We'll consider that a loan as well.

Shit, why stop there. Let's make elementary and middle school private too! Yay! This way everyone can be up to their ass in debt as soon as they exit the womb, and then they can work the rest of their lives to pay it off! This is a glorious libertarian nation! It'll be filled with mostly wage slaves toiling to pay off their debts, with a few owners at the top sitting pretty. Obviously, that wouldn't turn out very well. That's how communist revolutions happen.

Either that or the non-wealthy will end up in sub-standard bargain schools and even though they don't have debt, they have poor educations and become wage-slaves none the less.

This is the drawback of a pure unregulated capitalistic system. It necasarily results in concentration of wealth among very few individuals and the rest of the population become wage slaves.
It's the entire reason we have things like the estate tax, so we don't end up with a permanent ruling class

[SpicyMcVoodoo]

This seems relevant to the discussion:

The Plot Thickens: Students at 921 Colleges Choose the Same Lender -- Education-Portal.com

It's another example of how free market theory doesn't always pan out in reality. You'd think by having free market of private lenders, people could pick and choose, there would be competition, and students would end up with the best rates. But no...

Through a combination of kickbacks, schools unduly influencing students and who knows what else, a few companies wind up with the bulk of all loans.

I think the student lending industry is a free market anomaly. 18 year old kids aren't exactly rational consumers, so you can't rely on rational self interest like you would with other things. Add to that the undue influence of universities, which students trust, and you have a free market which isn't always benefiting the consumer.

[Publius]

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

I think the student lending industry is a free market anomaly. 18 year old kids aren't exactly rational consumers, so you can't rely on rational self interest like you would with other things. Add to that the financially-biased influence of universities, which students trust, and you have a free market which isn't benefiting the consumer.

No, you just don't have a true free market.

[SpicyMcVoodoo]

Originally Posted by Publius

No, you just don't have a true free market.

You're starting to sound like a communist explaining why communist states haven't worked.

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

This seems relevant to the discussion:

The Plot Thickens: Students at 921 Colleges Choose the Same Lender -- Education-Portal.com

It's another example of how free market theory doesn't always pan out in reality. You'd think by having free market of private lenders, people could pick and choose, there would be competition, and students would end up with the best rates. But no...

Through a combination of kickbacks, schools unduly influencing students and who knows what else, a few companies wind up with the bulk of all loans.

I think the student lending industry is a free market anomaly. 18 year old kids aren't exactly rational consumers, so you can't rely on rational self interest like you would with other things. Add to that the undue influence of universities, which students trust, and you have a free market which isn't always benefiting the consumer.

Isn't there an ongoing investigation about this? I remember hearing something on NPR about school loan officers who were taking kickbacks in exchange for steering students towards a particular company. Students believe that the school has thier best interest in mind so they go to the "preferred lender", even when that lender didn't even have the best deals for the students.

[Publius]

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

You're starting to sound like a communist explaining why communist states haven't worked.

Not really. When a university is using power to influence a decision it is screwing the free market. In a free market, the university would either be uninvolved in the loan process or would simply give the students a list of several loan companies that they have worked with in the past.

My university did the latter, from what I've heard. I received two scholarships from the school that completely covered my tuition, so I thankfully never had to deal with the loan process. But from friends that did, UD simply gave students a list of 50 or 60 reputable loan companies with contact information.

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by Publius

Not really. When a university is using power to influence a decision