notsheigetz wrote:
The whole student loan/cost of education thing boggles my mind. I managed to save enough money working part-time as a busboy in high school to pay my tuition at the Ohio State University. My how things have changed.
I have co-workers about 10 years younger than me putting kids through college without loans and although they don't share the full extent of it I get the impression it is VERY expensive.
It's like $50k+ for a public school and $150k+ for a private school. I know someone who's currently attending a private liberal arts school (the worst offenders IMHO) whose total cost is in the realm of $250k I believe. Don't ask if she's studying anything of economic value. You really don't want to know.
The good news is that if you're poor, schools with a high endowment will often waive much or all of the cost. The bad news is that if you were responsible and saved the money, they just take it. Surprise!
Wait the government scheme to help make higher education more affordable and achievable for young people has resulted in skyrocketing prices and worthless degrees? Who could have predicted that government subsidies would lead to higher prices and over-supply?
hmmmmmm?
What is going to happen with heathcare now? hmmmmmm
Maybe if the government can just borrow and spend we can have a "beautiful deleveraging".
Kshartle wrote:
Wait the government scheme to help make higher education more affordable and achievable for young people has resulted in skyrocketing prices and worthless degrees? Who could have predicted that government subsidies would lead to higher prices and over-supply?
All of us here?
Human behavior is economic behavior. The particulars may vary, but competition for limited resources remains a constant.
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
Kshartle wrote:
Wait the government scheme to help make higher education more affordable and achievable for young people has resulted in skyrocketing prices and worthless degrees? Who could have predicted that government subsidies would lead to higher prices and over-supply?
Kshartle wrote:
Wait the government scheme to help make higher education more affordable and achievable for young people has resulted in skyrocketing prices and worthless degrees? Who could have predicted that government subsidies would lead to higher prices and over-supply?
All of us here?
That would be nice but sadly there are still people here that think government spending can somehow help something. Redistributing wealth, preventing prices from falling, doing this scheme or that. Many posters still think wealth and savings come from the gubmit.
Kshartle wrote:
Wait the government scheme to help make higher education more affordable and achievable for young people has resulted in skyrocketing prices and worthless degrees? Who could have predicted that government subsidies would lead to higher prices and over-supply?
All of us here?
That would be nice but sadly there are still people here that think government spending can somehow help something. Redistributing wealth, preventing prices from falling, doing this scheme or that. Many posters still think wealth and savings come from the gubmit.
We never said wealth comes from the government. We just said that the currency we use to represent our savings either comes from the government or private credit — which is true. The overwhelming majority of our currency comes from private credit. Government spending pales in comparison.
Obviously the Treasury spending on something will cause that something to rise in prices. That is obvious. We all agree on that.
But, you guys still don't understand the difference between a monetary operation and a fiscal operation. The Fed can only change the composition of our dollar-denominate assets, while the Treasury — for better of for worse — increases our dollar-denominates assets. If you want to argue that Treasury spending is bad, knock yourself out. I'm not arguing the merits of Treasury fiscal spending one way or the other.
But, if you don't think that banks don't "print" the overwhelming majority of the money in our society, you're burying your head in the sand.
Last edited by Gumby on Fri Oct 04, 2013 10:03 am, edited 1 time in total.
Nothing I say should be construed as advice or expertise. I am only sharing opinions which may or may not be applicable in any given case.
Nobody has to like it. It's just what the government does. And truth be told, all this stuff is so wonkish, there is no way to know if any of this is "good" or "bad" until decades from now.
Nothing I say should be construed as advice or expertise. I am only sharing opinions which may or may not be applicable in any given case.
Nobody has to like it. It's just what the government does. And truth be told, all this stuff is so wonkish, there is no way to know if any of this is "good" or "bad" until decades from now.
Wait I thought his video was slam dunk correct. Are you disagreeing with it or just saying there's no way to know if he's right?
And, ultimately, my main argument is that there is huge difference between Treasury spending (i.e. FISCAL operations) and Federal Reserve swaps (i.e. MONETARY operations).
Treasury spending puts money in people's pockets and dilutes the purchasing power.
Federal Reserve swaps doesn't add any purchasing power to anyone's pockets. It just changes the composition of our savings.
They are two different things. The Fed would have a difficult time raising the cost of tuition, because it can't give people additional savings to pay for college.
Last edited by Gumby on Fri Oct 04, 2013 10:17 am, edited 1 time in total.
Nothing I say should be construed as advice or expertise. I am only sharing opinions which may or may not be applicable in any given case.
Kshartle wrote:Wait I thought his video was slam dunk correct. Are you disagreeing with it or just saying there's no way to know if he's right?
The video describes the mechanics of what the monetary system almost perfectly. But, just because the mechanics are correct, doesn't mean the policy is good or bad. You understand the difference, right?
That's why an anarchist should be able to grasp MR. MR doesn't condone the system, it just describes how it operates. You can use that knowledge to oppose the system if you choose.
Nothing I say should be construed as advice or expertise. I am only sharing opinions which may or may not be applicable in any given case.
Gumby wrote:
Either way, you need to not get so emotional about the mechanics. We are just describing what happens during "reflation".
I appreciate the concern but you need not get so emotional about me being emotional (I'm not, you're engaging in ad hominem, trying to claim I'm being emotional which somehow diminishes my point).
Gumby wrote:
Either way, you need to not get so emotional about the mechanics. We are just describing what happens during "reflation".
I appreciate the concern but you need not get so emotional about me being emotional (I'm not, you're engaging in ad hominem, trying to claim I'm being emotional which somehow diminishes my point).
Ok, KShartle. You're not "emotional". I'm sure nobody here thinks that.
Funny how you accuse others of this though.
Nothing I say should be construed as advice or expertise. I am only sharing opinions which may or may not be applicable in any given case.
I feel like every thread with Kshartle in it turns into a variant of this extremely frustrating conversation about firearms that I suspect many of us have had:
Gun owner: The way a gun works is by setting off an explosive reaction in a confined space to force a metal projectile down a tube.
Anti-gun person: But guns kill people!
GO: Yes. That's the point. The way they do this is through a controlled chemical reaction that I'm trying to explain to you.
AGP: Don't you understand that killing people is bad!?
GO: The gun is neutral. It doesn't kill anyone. The wielder does. I'm just talking about the way a gun works.
AGP: I don't care about how a gun works; it's a malevolent object that kills people.
GO: Look, the end purpose isn't something I'm concerned with right now. You can use a gun for good or you can use it for evil. All I want to do is explain how a gun works so we can all have a better understanding of the mechanics of firearms.
AGP: I don't need to know that, all I need to know is that they're bad and the world would be better off without them. Why would I want a better understanding of the mechanics of something so harmful?
GO: To broaden your understanding of the world around you, and possibly gain some insight into the workings of something that's not going away anytime soon.
AGP: They should go away. Guns are bad and kill people.
GO: Guns are here to stay, whether you like it or not. Given that, isn't it sensible to gain some understanding of their internal logic?
AGP: I don't need to know that, all I need to know is that they're bad and the world would be better off without them. Why would I want a better understanding of the mechanics of something so harmful?
…and on and on forever…
Human behavior is economic behavior. The particulars may vary, but competition for limited resources remains a constant.
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
Gumby wrote:
Either way, you need to not get so emotional about the mechanics. We are just describing what happens during "reflation".
I appreciate the concern but you need not get so emotional about me being emotional (I'm not, you're engaging in ad hominem, trying to claim I'm being emotional which somehow diminishes my point).
Ok, KShartle. You're not "emotional". I'm sure nobody here thinks that.
Funny how you accuse others of this though.
Right. This is a combo deal. Changing the subject to me, and attributing something to me I haven't said. A two for one!
Kshartle wrote:
I appreciate the concern but you need not get so emotional about me being emotional (I'm not, you're engaging in ad hominem, trying to claim I'm being emotional which somehow diminishes my point).
Ok, KShartle. You're not "emotional". I'm sure nobody here thinks that.
Funny how you accuse others of this though.
Right. This is a combo deal. Changing the subject to me, and attributing something to me I haven't said. A two for one!
Fellas, don't do this.
If you don't agree with one another and you don't think you can work out your disagreement, let's talk about something else.
There are plenty of places on the internet to knock heads with other people until everyone is exhausted. I don't want this to be one of those places.
Q: “Do you have funny shaped balloons?”
A: “Not unless round is funny.”
Pointedstick wrote:
I feel like every thread with Kshartle in it turns into a variant of this extremely frustrating conversation about firearms that I suspect many of us have had:
Gun owner: The way a gun works is by setting off an explosive reaction in a confined space to force a metal projectile down a tube.
Anti-gun person: But guns kill people!
GO: Yes. That's the point. The way they do this is through a controlled chemical reaction that I'm trying to explain to you.
AGP: Don't you understand that killing people is bad!?
GO: The gun is neutral. It doesn't kill anyone. The wielder does. I'm just talking about the way a gun works.
AGP: I don't care about how a gun works; it's a malevolent object that kills people.
GO: Look, the end purpose isn't something I'm concerned with right now. You can use a gun for good or you can use it for evil. All I want to do is explain how a gun works so we can all have a better understanding of the mechanics of firearms.
AGP: I don't need to know that, all I need to know is that they're bad and the world would be better off without them. Why would I want a better understanding of the mechanics of something so harmful?
GO: To broaden your understanding of the world around you, and possibly gain some insight into the workings of something that's not going away anytime soon.
AGP: They should go away. Guns are bad and kill people.
GO: Guns are here to stay, whether you like it or not. Given that, isn't it sensible to gain some understanding of their internal logic?
AGP: I don't need to know that, all I need to know is that they're bad and the world would be better off without them. Why would I want a better understanding of the mechanics of something so harmful?
Pointedstick wrote:
I feel like every thread with Kshartle in it turns into a variant of this extremely frustrating conversation about firearms that I suspect many of us have had:
Gun owner: The way a gun works is by setting off an explosive reaction in a confined space to force a metal projectile down a tube.
Anti-gun person: But guns kill people!
GO: Yes. That's the point. The way they do this is through a controlled chemical reaction that I'm trying to explain to you.
AGP: Don't you understand that killing people is bad!?
GO: The gun is neutral. It doesn't kill anyone. The wielder does. I'm just talking about the way a gun works.
AGP: I don't care about how a gun works; it's a malevolent object that kills people.
GO: Look, the end purpose isn't something I'm concerned with right now. You can use a gun for good or you can use it for evil. All I want to do is explain how a gun works so we can all have a better understanding of the mechanics of firearms.
AGP: I don't need to know that, all I need to know is that they're bad and the world would be better off without them. Why would I want a better understanding of the mechanics of something so harmful?
GO: To broaden your understanding of the world around you, and possibly gain some insight into the workings of something that's not going away anytime soon.
AGP: They should go away. Guns are bad and kill people.
GO: Guns are here to stay, whether you like it or not. Given that, isn't it sensible to gain some understanding of their internal logic?
AGP: I don't need to know that, all I need to know is that they're bad and the world would be better off without them. Why would I want a better understanding of the mechanics of something so harmful?
…and on and on forever…
Wait which one am I?
Politicians having access to a printing press and understanding the consequences to the economy is engaging in understanding reality. Ignoring it is ignoring reality.
Simonjester wrote:
kshartle is correct in his understanding of expanding/printing government and the fact it will ultimately result in trouble, but he is incorrect in his predictions of immanent inflation because he doesn't get the mechanics, moda gumby and the MR group are correct about inflation because they get the mechanics but incorrect about how governments infinite spending/expansion wont cause problems because they don't get the effects of force... does that clarify anything??
the gun analogy got a bit confusing to me as well since the pro government types tend to be the ones who are anti gun....
Kshartle wrote:
PoliticiansPeople having access to a printing pressguns and understanding the consequences to the economypublic safety is engaging in understanding reality. Ignoring it is ignoring reality.
Is this an argument that would sway YOU?
Human behavior is economic behavior. The particulars may vary, but competition for limited resources remains a constant.
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
Kshartle wrote:
PoliticiansPeople having access to a printing pressguns and understanding the consequences to the economypublic safety is engaging in understanding reality. Ignoring it is ignoring reality.
Is this an argument that would sway YOU?
Guns are indeed morally neutral. Government is not; it is evil. Does that affect the analogy?
Libertarian666 wrote:
Guns are indeed morally neutral. Government is not; it is evil. Does that affect the analogy?
Government is just a shell for the people who operate it. If we had a small government that owned productive industries for income, did not tax or regulate, and existed purely for the protection of its members, as provided by a voluntary defense-only military force, would that be evil?
I think there are a lot of moral parallels between guns and government. Give them to violent, uncivilized people and you have mayhem and oppression. Give them to responsible people and you get order and protection. And neither are going away anytime soon.
Human behavior is economic behavior. The particulars may vary, but competition for limited resources remains a constant.
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
Libertarian666 wrote:
Guns are indeed morally neutral. Government is not; it is evil. Does that affect the analogy?
Government is just a shell for the people who operate it. If we had a small government that owned productive industries for income, did not tax or regulate, and existed purely for the protection of its members, as provided by a voluntary defense-only military force, would that be evil?
Pointedstick wrote:
A voluntary government is like a square circle: not evil, just impossible. No government could allow people to opt out of their "protection" and still be a government.
I think there are a lot of moral parallels between guns and government. Give them to violent, uncivilized people and you have mayhem and oppression. Give them to responsible people and you get order and protection. And neither are going away anytime soon.
Sorry, but that is wrong. Government is evil by its nature, whereas guns are not.
Simonjester wrote:
kshartle is correct in his understanding of expanding/printing government and the fact it will ultimately result in trouble, but he is incorrect in his predictions of immanent inflation because he doesn't get the mechanics
Agreed.
Simonjester wrote:moda gumby and the MR group are correct about inflation because they get the mechanics but incorrect about how governments infinite spending/expansion wont cause problems because they don't get the effects of force...
If we are guilty of not being more vocal about the force of government, so be it. It's just something we choose to not lose sleep over. We are really focussing on inflation and investments on this forum (it's not really supposed to be a political forum anyway)
And, by the way, it is possible to have a small government with deficit spending. All you have to do is give every citizen the same citizen's dividend each year and have a small government office to make sure everyone gets their checks in the mail (similar to just issuing tax refunds to every citizen along with a very small government). And you can use taxes to manage inflation if you wish. Will this ever happen? Probably not. Am I advocating that? No. Just saying that increasing state-issued money isn't always the same thing as expanding government. A tax cut is really another form of government spending.
Also, it's incorrect to suggest that Pointedstick does not understand the problems of government expansion. He was doing an excellent job explaining those long-term issues to us long before Libertarian666 and KShartle showed up.
Simonjester wrote:
i think this is one area where the politics or macro politics are well interconnected with economics, well enough to warrant discussion, its not the republicans and democrats calling each other doo doo heads type politics the forum rules and good sense should lead us to avoid.
i agree - it is possible to have deficit spending or monetary expansion with out big government,
But that is not the direction we are headed in.
a few gov employes carefully spending without mis-allocation or corruption, a large and increasing amount of money, is vastly preferable to an ever-expanding group of corrupt gov employes, demanding ever expanding quantities of money to spend, using the harm they have caused as the justification or measure of the need for more of the same...
sorry didn't mean to sweep PS up in my gross generalization "MR group"
Last edited by Gumby on Fri Oct 04, 2013 12:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Nothing I say should be construed as advice or expertise. I am only sharing opinions which may or may not be applicable in any given case.
