|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
catman
Joined: 18 Jul 2004
|
 Posted: Tue Nov 06, 2007 9:44 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| I have no doubt that Ralph Nader will run. The liberals/leftist need an anti-war candidate to vote for. It isn't going to be the Democratic candidate. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 06, 2007 11:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| thepeel wrote: |
| Your country is torturing people. |
No. Again this is irrational.
How does it follow for you that because Guantanamo Bay exists we must therefore dismantle the Great Society and New Deal? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 06, 2007 11:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Pluto wrote: |
| thepeel wrote: |
| Gopher wrote: |
I am no expert on student loans. But I am fairly certain that if someone like Ron Paul abolished the program in one fell swoop and "liberated" the American people to seek private financing in order to go to private educational institutions (what other institutions would survive a Ron Paul presidency?), I do not think you would like the results, Kuros.
|
I know you don't study economics Gopher, so I will forgive you for making such an elementary mistake.
Let me walk you through it.
Inflation happens when you increase the amount of a means of exchange chasing a commodity. That is, if you have 100$ and 100 apples in a closed economy you can reasonably expect the apples to cost about 1$ each (with some variation). If you then, in this closed economy, increase the amount of the means of exchange to 200$ and the amount of apples is kept at 100, then we can reasonably assume that the costs per apply with be in the neighborhood of 2$. Inflation!
How does this relate?
What large scale government loan programs do is increase the available amount of money that is reasonably accessible for students who wish to attend college. Schools know that there is more money out there for students to borrow, and that students do not understand personal finance and will max out their loans, and rationally raise their fees to ensure the local pubs don't get any more money than they ought to.
Government loans dramatically fuel tuition inflation.
Also, governments increase credit. Not only is there more money for student loans from the government, but with the massive increase in m2m3 there is just more money to lend out full stop. This also leads to rising prices in those commodities where people typically finance their purchases (see your local Southern California housing market for further evidence).
School is out. |
In 1970 the cost of a University education w/ room and board was $2531.
By 2002 the cost, in nominal terms, was $18,273. In real terms, however, the cost of tuition was $3,917. The cost in real terms comes from the following indices: CPI'70 = 38.8 CPI'02=181 and of course CPI'83=100. Therefore the real increase was 55%.
What caused this increase is the question at hand. Thepeel makes the claim that the government flooded the market with money and college administrators saw all that money going to pubs and liquor stores instead of the college or university so tuition went up...
whatever 
It actually has more to do with supply/demand. Demand went up as did the needs of supplying those demands. In 1970, there were about 7.4 million undergraduates and by 2002 there were more than 13 million undergrads. Universities responded to much of that demand by improving facilities such as constructing more modern classrooms, laboratories, libraries and other facilities. Universities also hired more specialized professors and other personal who demanded more money. Thus there was a leftward shift in the supply.
It really had little to do with greedy administrators trying to prevent their students from enjoying their weekend benders
- ROFL  |
Say what? Supply and demand is true? Thank god.. Guess this boring ass econ homework of mine is worth doing after all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2007 9:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
No. You do not undersstand where inflation comes from. The more money bidding for a product the higher that product will cost. It has nothing to do with greed. You don't know. But inflation is always a monetary issue. The more money, the less it is worth and the more you need. The more money you make available for schools, the more the schools will cost. Full stop. Final answer.
Supply and demand. Yeah. As in the money supply has gone through the roof and the demand not. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
igotthisguitar
Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2007 9:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
How does it follow for you that because Guantanamo Bay exists we must therefore
dismantle the Great Society and New Deal? |
Guantanamo is tangible & real.
The great society and New Deal as you put them are merely abstract & rhetorical intangibles. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 08, 2007 12:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
Mea culpa.
ontheway is saying that the RP headquarters didn't set the clock at zero on Tuesday when reporting contributions, so the numbers I was quoting include the money they already had on hand.
In the end, they claim they only received $4.3 million, considerably less than the hoped-for $10 million. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mistermasan
Joined: 20 Sep 2007
Location: 10+ yrs on Dave's ESL cafe
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 08, 2007 6:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
i though his campaign had targeted 12 million by dec 31. the money bomb of nov 5 wasn't even organized by his org. but rather by grassroots.
paul said he had never met the organizers of such. also, he hasn't seen "V for vendetta". even better: tom cruise sought him out at a meet n greet. after cruise left, paul asked an aid "what movies has he been in?" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
igotthisguitar
Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 08, 2007 6:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mistermasan wrote: |
| after cruise left, paul asked an aid "what movies has he been in?" |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pluto
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 08, 2007 8:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| thepeel wrote: |
No. You do not undersstand where inflation comes from. The more money bidding for a product the higher that product will cost. It has nothing to do with greed. You don't know. But inflation is always a monetary issue. The more money, the less it is worth and the more you need. The more money you make available for schools, the more the schools will cost. Full stop. Final answer.
Supply and demand. Yeah. As in the money supply has gone through the roof and the demand not. |
Nope! More students=> higher demand. More university specialization pushed the supply curve right and up. End result was higher real prices.
You don't know. You're a populist ideologue just like Ron Paul.
Period! Final answer!
Last edited by Pluto on Fri Nov 09, 2007 12:08 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 08, 2007 8:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Unfortunately not.
On the one hand, you are right. More students are attending. But demand does not necessarily mean increased prices, does it? There would have to be supply issues, which there are not. Then we need another answer.
Of course, they are able to attend because more money has been dedicated to their cause (this is what a government aided student loan does; it dedicates a certain portion of the money supply to cause x) while at the same time the value of that money has been debased. Added to this the economic FACT that ALL inflation is "everywhere and always a monetary phenomenon" and we can clearly see that dedicating a certain % of the money supply to a good can only, and will only, increase the cost of that good.
I know that you aren't really 'versed' in this stuff. So let me help you.
1) If the amount of money available for tuition were to decrease, what would happen to tuition? Would schools be able to keep prices at this level?
2) If government did not dedicate "x" amount of the money supply to school loans, would there be as much money borrowed for educational reasons?
3) If the value of the dollar had not decreased about 60% since the 70's, would tuition still have gone up to the extent it did?
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3262
| Quote: |
The Tuition Aid Trap
by Neal McCluskey
Neal McCluskey is a policy analyst with the Center for Educational Freedom at the Cato Institute.
Americans, it seems, have never been better educated. Between 1970 and 2000 the number of individuals enrolled in institutions of higher learning increased from about 8.5 million to 15.3 million. Likewise, from 1971 to 2001, the percentage of 25- to 29-year olds in the United States holding at least a bachelor's degree rose 71 percent. So why, as Congress prepares to reauthorize the federal law governing higher education, are policy makers so unhappy?
The answer is the ever-rising cost of college tuition, and the anxiety it's causing students and parents. Fortunately, a new report from the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, The College Cost Crisis, contains clues to a solution -- if only policy makers would see them
The report -- released to herald the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act -- quickly identifies the tuition rocket's likely fuel: "Beginning with the Higher Education Act of 1965, the federal government ... has provided significant funding to help ensure that low- and moderate-income students and families are not prevented from receiving a postsecondary education simply because of financial circumstances." This year, thanks to the Education Act, "roughly $90 billion [was invested] in higher education, with the bulk of that money, about $65 billion, [going] directly to students...."
Consider that $65 billion going directly to students and its effect on demand: A student will "purchase" education at a price he can afford. Extra education money enables him to pay a higher tuition. In the aggregate, multiple billions in student aid artificially inflate demand -- and average tuition -- as students who might not have gone to college do, and others attend more expensive institutions than they otherwise would have. The College Cost Crisis acknowledges that federal aid has produced just such an effect: Pell Grants alone, it boasts, have "made the dream of college a reality for millions of students" by helping to "defray the cost of higher education."
On the supply side, this federal aid makes universities less sensitive about their own costs. "[I]ncreases in financial aid in recent years have enabled colleges and universities blithely to raise tuitions, confident that Federal loan subsidies would help cushion the increase," then-Secretary of Education William J. Bennett said in 1987. The "Bennett hypothesis" -- the theory that as long as the government ensures the bills will get paid, colleges will raise tuition -- makes sense, especially in light of Washington's guarantee of an affordable college education for all who want one. It's a reality corroborated by Murray State University President Dr. F. King Alexander, who in a recent hearing centered around Crisis, told the House Subcommittee on 21st Century Competitiveness that some schools do, in fact, raise tuition because government will cover it.
Unfortunately, despite Dr, Alexander's revelation, subcommittee members spent little time digging deeper into the Bennett hypothesis. It's an attitude reflected in The College Cost Crisis, which gives Bennett's theory only a cursory -- but emphatic -- nod, with quotes from recent news articles: "Because parents and students keep coming back for more, there is 'no market constraint to keep them from raising tuition,' Newsweek quotes Ronald Ehrenberg, director of the Cornell Higher Education Research Institute, as saying. 'People continue to knock on their doors.' And, of course, the federal government continues to increase spending...."
So how does the report suggest dealing with tuition inflation problem? Having colleges and universities police themselves, abiding by a commitment "to not only acknowledge the problem but work toward addressing it, and broad cooperative efforts from all stakeholders in higher education...."
Good luck. If the Bennett hypothesis is valid, schools have no incentive to police themselves. As long as colleges compete, and university jobs and salaries depend on schools drawing kids away from competitors, institutions of higher learning won't stop buying the latest equipment, building new facilities, and hiring expensive, "celebrity" professors. That is, unless tuition and other funds become more scarce.
Reauthorization of the Higher Education Act is an excellent opportunity for all the college-educated folks in Congress to explore the real causes of skyrocketing tuition. Unfortunately, if The College Cost Crisis is any indication, higher education will continue to be treated as a federally insured entitlement, driving politicians to continue fueling the tuition rocket they say they want to slow down.
This article also appeared in the Washington Times. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 08, 2007 9:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| thepeel wrote: |
| Your country is torturing people. |
No. Again this is irrational.
How does it follow for you that because Guantanamo Bay exists we must therefore dismantle the Great Society and New Deal? |
Not irrational.
Your country is now a leading human rights abuser in the world. You should elect someone who will stop that. Very rational.
Your country is financially dysfunctional and you should elect somebody who can bring the house in order. Very rational.
The world is not going to financially fund and support your habits of war mongering, excess consumption and bullying anymore. You need to accept the new reality. America can't afford about 60% of what the government spends. Status quo is going to be really gawddamn painful in the very, very near future. Time to make some adult choices.
Fully rational.
In truth, I would be satisfied with Obama, Kucinich or Ron Paul. The wars have to end. Enough.
But Ron Paul hits the nail on the head:
| Quote: |
"But let it not be said that we did nothing. Let not those who love the power of the welfare/warfare state label the dissenters of authoritarianism as unpatriotic or uncaring. Patriotism is more closely linked to dissent than it is to conformity and a blind desire for safety and security. Understanding the magnificent rewards of a free society makes us unbashful in its promotion, fully realizing that maximum wealth is created and the greatest chance for peace comes from a society respectful of individual liberty." |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pluto
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 08, 2007 9:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Look, it's a little hard to hear you when you are lecturing about how people here know nothing about economics. It seems like, both you and ontheway, lecture us from atop your ivory towers. You both need to stop it. That was the reason for the snide remarks. I'm still a student and I've got a lot learn, I know.
| Quote: |
On the one hand, you are right. More students are attending. But demand does not necessarily mean increased prices, does it? There would have to be supply issues, which there are not. Then we need another answer.
|
This is true in the very rare instance that the supply curve isn't a curve, rather a horizontal line on the S-D graph. You and I both know that this isn't the case with regards to regards to university/college tuition.  This wasn't the case and the demand curve shifted right and up along the supply curve. Quantity went up as did price.
| Quote: |
Of course, they are able to attend because more money has been dedicated to their cause (this is what a government aided student loan does; it dedicates a certain portion of the money supply to cause x) while at the same time the value of that money has been debased. Added to this the economic FACT that ALL inflation is "everywhere and always a monetary phenomenon" and we can clearly see that dedicating a certain % of the money supply to a good can only, and will only, increase the cost of that good.
|
Actually the supply curve did shift up due to more specialized and more modern facilities. Also, Universities hired more professors to cope with higher demand. Thus, the supply curve shifted up. This again caused the price to rise.
| Quote: |
I know that you aren't really 'versed' in this stuff. So let me help you.
|
The ivory tower again. 
| Quote: |
1) If the amount of money available for tuition were to decrease, what would happen to tuition? Would schools be able to keep prices at this level?
2) If government did not dedicate "x" amount of the money supply to school loans, would there be as much money borrowed for educational reasons?
3) If the value of the dollar had not decreased about 60% since the 70's, would tuition still have gone up to the extent it did?
|
1. Well, they would either make cuts or go out of business causing the supply curve to go down. That would be coupled with decreased demand causing lower tuition.
2. Well, you forgot to mention grants, loans and scholarships coming from the private sector. In fact, much of the listed tuition were phantom costs meaning that the universities covered the advertised costs themselves. This is especially true with the private colleges and universities.
3. Purely a hypothetical. At any rate, it has made it more attractive for foreign students to study at our universities causing a shift in demand. Beyond that, it�s hard to say.
At any rate, you should know that I do lean right in governmental budgetary matters. I hate taxes and I hate big government. I don't trust either. However, there are few exceptions. One of those exceptions is the education of our youth. In fact, I view it as in investment not an expense. University graduates provide more capital creation to our economy than high school students. If a student is qualified to attend said university, I believe (or I really wish) that cost should not be an issue. As far as Ron Paul is concerned, he is on the wrong side of issues considering defense, education, transportation and a few other issues. Furthermore, the only reason he's got any notoriety is Iraq; that's it. Like I said, he is a populist and I don't trust his ideas.
Also, for the record, I was never an esl douchbag in Soeul. I was in Ilsan and will come back when I finish up here.
Last edited by Pluto on Thu Nov 08, 2007 9:58 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 08, 2007 9:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ilsan, Seoul. It is all the same. G
So, those words you are missing are
"You are right, thepeel. I was wrong". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pluto
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 08, 2007 9:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| thepeel wrote: |
Ilsan, Seoul. It is all the same. G
So, those words you are missing are
"You are right, thepeel. I was wrong". |
...eh? What's that? Hard for us common folk to hear you from atop your ivory tower.
Nope, I'll never apoligize to you. I've got my beliefs and I've got very good reasons for those beliefs. I Still support John McCain, still think RP is a populist. By the way, never said I was an esl either.
Though to be fair, I don't consider you completely wrong. I agree the government has gotten too big and many things need to be streamlined.
Last edited by Pluto on Thu Nov 08, 2007 11:31 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 08, 2007 10:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Populism as defined by answers.com is:
A political philosophy supporting the rights and power of the people in their struggle against the privileged elite.
So, in a very strict sense you are right. Paul is a populist. He was liberty both from the welfare and warfare state. Not a bad idea. The welfare state has consequences (as we have see above) far beyond what the ninny's who support it believe. He would end the two wars in muslim lands, the war on drugs (which is nothing less than the biggest civil rights issue of our day) and put in center-stage civil liberties. I'm down. I don't how in the hell anybody could not be.
Next time you are looking at a large and sustained increase in the cost of a specific commodity ignore all your upward/downward consumption graphs etc. Markets should sort it out and bring a semblance of equilibrium. If they don't, you have to look for monetary reasons. Virtually all sustained inflation is monetary. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
