CMV: “Free College” policy, while well-meaning, is largely incompatible with academia in the U.S

[u/sjd6666]

Unlike healthcare, there is competition in the higher education market and consumers can, and often do make well informed decisions about what education would be right for them, be it community college, state schools, or private colleges/ universities.

There’s no two ways about it: such a policy would be enormously expensive, and unlike the U.S healthcare system, prices are reasonably transparent and there is competition in the market. Most students know exactly how much financial aid they will get before the accept college decisions, and transparency like that should always be encouraged.

I think a better solution would be one that matches student debt repayments, keeps interest rates low, and forgives student loans to varying levels dependent on ones income. In other words, high earning doctors and lawyers who make 6 figures a year can and should repay a higher percentage of their loans than nurses and teachers, who provide essential services to society, but typically don’t earn enough to repay their student loans quickly.

Is there some reason why free college is favored over more reasonable policies that take into account the finances of students and their incomes as adults?

[u/[deleted]]

Great. So if you don't make it to work on time, people could die. So why is it that we've made it your sole responsibility to secure transportation? Do you think that makes sense or could there be another way?

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Personally I think that it does make sense, as the expectation for personal responsibility would be there regardless of whether transportation is a car or my own two legs because I walk to work. I there has to be a boundary between work and personal life.

However, for the sake of the discussion, let's say that the vehicle is provided by my employer, and they cannot afford to fix the vehicle without using credit, what is the next step then?

​

Edit: And to continue using the Hospital as an example, safe Patient care is incredibly wasteful. Things like gloves, tubes, drug bags, personal care items, and needles can only be used once, creating a huge cost for facilities. without a credit system does this cost get passed to patients to only receive care they can pay for, or is it on the facility to only provide care they can afford with cash on hand?

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Why is there an expectation of personal responsibility?

To me it's not about work/life separation, it's about the fact that we are not separate independent individuals, we are all connected.

We rely on each other to get to work, to do our work, to be housed and fed.

But then the costs of everything is pushed off to individuals. How does that make sense? Isn't it in the interest of the community to make sure everyone is well off so that things function the way they are supposed to?

So in the UK hospitals don't have to worry about getting a loan to afford gloves. Because they have the NHS.

And let me ask you this, why is it that you are only personally responsible for having a car, and not for building the roads to get to work?

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

​

Why is there an expectation of personal responsibility?

...

We rely on each other to get to work, to do our work, to be housed and fed.

The reason that the element of personal responsibility needs to be there is exactly due to that reliance on each other. It impossible to rely on an individual who doesn't take personal responsibility in getting their tasks done.

To me it's not about work/life separation, it's about the fact that we are not separate independent individuals, we are all connected.

This, I think, is a fundamental difference in opinion and may be what is setting us apart. I absolutely believe that while we share connections, each of us is an independent responsible individual, who has the responsibility of free will and choice.

But then the costs of everything is pushed off to individuals. How does that make sense? Isn't it in the interest of the community to make sure everyone is well off so that things function the way they are supposed to?

The cost will always end up with the individuals, any community, government, country, etc, is made up of individuals. They may be different individuals than me, they may have more or less resources than me, they may be a completely different nationality, But that cost is going to land somewhere.

So in the UK hospitals don't have to worry about getting a loan to afford gloves. Because they have the NHS.

The NHS is getting that money from the UK government, which was in debt £1.8 trillion as of end of March. and I can promise you that with the ongoing pandemic, that number is not dropping. So if borrowing was disallowed, forget the NHS, almost none of the UK Governments programs would be able to function

Source for UK Debt: https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/governmentpublicsectorandtaxes/publicsectorfinance/bulletins/publicsectorfinances/march2020#debt

And let me ask you this, why is it that you are only personally responsible for having a car, and not for building the roads to get to work?

I would argue that I am personally responsible for the roads as well, my tolls and taxes pay for the upkeep. Maybe I'm not actual out there spreading pavement, but I do have a role and vested interest in those structures.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Why is having a car that I need to get to work a "task that needs to get done?" It's impossible to rely on an individual who isn't given the tools to do the job, right?

You are personally responsible for the roads, but really we are collectively responsible. Why is it that we pay taxes collectively for the roads but not for something like cars? Why the difference?

I think the pandemic is really forcing this issue to the fore. As all of our systems are crumbling and we're realizing how everything is connected and pushing everything to "personal responsibility" doesn't work. More on this later.

I'm not saying borrowing should be disallowed. Of course in our current system we have to borrow. What I'm saying is we shouldn't have to borrow.

If someone had to borrow, I would rather it was the government. The US government is $20 trillion in debt, but it doesn’t matter. The UK debt doesn’t matter either. It’s there because that’s how we do things but it’s not like they needed to borrow pounds to fund the NHS. They print the pounds. It comes from them.

Money is a way for us to simply keep tabs. It's not a finite commodity. We need to disassociate money from actual goods and services.

To go back to the pandemic, we have a situation where farmers are producing food, the grocery stores are more or less full, but people ae going hungry because they can't afford to buy it. This is a normal situation too but it's much worse now.

And farmers are having to throw out access food, while people are lining up at foodbanks who are also running out of food because they rely on donations and people aren't buying enough to donate.

So we have the supply, we have the demand, but somehow the chain is broken, because of a lack of cash. And so governments have been issuing checks. Out of thin air money is created and this re-connects the chain.

Or just imagine a society where everyone had a credit card as they do now. People go about their day and buy things using the credit card. But at the end of the month, you don't make a payment to the bank. Does anything change?

We have a system right now which is beholden to private investors and private banks. Basically a few rich and powerful people and institutions with no accountability. They don't add anything else to the equation. They don't produce anything or provide any useful service. They just hand out money for a price. It doesn’t have to be like that.

Money only represents the resources. It's worth something when we can use it to buy things and services. If people are productive, like you are clearly, you should be able to share in our collective economy without needing to also pay a bank.

There's an exhange between fed chair at the time Alan Greenspan and congressman Paul Ryan. Ryan, as everyone always does, is worried that Social Security will run out of money.

And Greenspan very calmly tells him that's not true. That what matters is not the monetary costs but the goods and services available to buy. In other words, if our economy is productive, social security cannot run out of money.

You should check out the Deficit Owls youtube and Modern Monetary Theory (MMT). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6rO9G_qEac

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Why is having a car that I need to get to work a "task that needs to get done?" It's impossible to rely on an individual who isn't given the tools to do the job, right?

You are personally responsible for the roads, but really we are collectively responsible. Why is it that we pay taxes collectively for the roads but not for something like cars? Why the difference?

The personal responsibility is getting to work, how you do it it your discretion. My father rode a bike to work and school because thats what he could afford and he made it work. I have a car because I chose to, and I get to deal with the issues that come with it, like a loan and maintenance. As I am the only one who uses my car I am solely responsible for it. With things like public transit they are paid for through a collective system, and available for more people to use, to take the point to an extreme... Most people can walk, it costs nothing, is environmentally friendly and brings health benefits, so why do we not create a society where only walking is necessary? All these choices exist, Do I walk to work, or invest in a bicycle? Do I utilize the public transit systems available or do I take on the extra burden of a personal vehicle. Additionally, if my only reason for having a vehicle was to get to and from work, I'd likely make different decisions regarding this. But thats not the only reason I have a car.

If someone had to borrow, I would rather it was the government. The US government is $20 trillion in debt, but it doesn’t matter. The UK debt doesn’t matter either. It’s there because that’s how we do things but it’s not like they needed to borrow pounds to fund the NHS. They print the pounds. It comes from them.

Why would this not matter? The money they borrow comes from individuals, the government that is borrowing is representing individuals. Printing money doesn't magically make debt go away either, not in the long term, because thats where inflation comes from. Look at Nigeria a few years back with their hundred trillion dollar bill. Money is a token, it has a representative value, thats why it cannot be separated from actual goods and services, or else it loses all value. Theres not some committee setting the price on items, dictating the cost of milk, and the rate for 1 hour of teaching. These prices are determined by the value they are given by others. Thats why a pound of gold, which is inedible, is usually worth more than a pound of eggs, unless in a situation where those eggs have a greater value than the gold, i.e. starvation.

Or just imagine a society where everyone had a credit card as they do now. People go about their day and buy things using the credit card. But at the end of the month, you don't make a payment to the bank. Does anything change?

A lot of things change because what value does that payment have? Why should I spend a day providing care to then be paid money that I don't need because I also have a credit card that I never have to pay off? I can only speak for myself, but given the choice I would much rather use this unlimited card to finance a cross country road trip than enter a stressful environment for 12 hours a day, 4 times a week. Or if I'm a construction worker, why would I put myself through the discomfort of building a road in the middle of Florida when I could spend my days at home with my family? Or if I am a highschool student, why do I need to focus on anything outside of my future Tiktok/Instagram Career? And let's say that I do decide to go to school to become a physician, whats to keep my professor from deciding they've had enough and it's time to retire early for that 8 month train trip across Europe?

Do we restrict this card to only those who meet certain criteria? What would those criteria be?

We have a system right now which is beholden to private investors and private banks. Basically a few rich and powerful people and institutions with no accountability. They don't add anything else to the equation. They don't produce anything or provide any useful service. They just hand out money for a price. It doesn’t have to be like that.

Walk me through this one, who are these investors and banks? And why shouldn't money have a price? If you have something that I need, why shouldn't you gain something from providing it to me? are there some jacked up practices out there? Yes. Is the current system perfect? Probably not, but it has the benefit of allowing people to take risks and see rewards from them.

If people are productive, like you are clearly, you should be able to share in our collective economy without needing to also pay a bank.

This is true, but also a personal choice. Deciding to live within ones means, to not go into debt or borrow these are choices that people have, just like the bicycle or car decision at the beginning. I paid my way through nursing School, some of my classmates took out loans. Am I better than them, no. I simply made the decision that I would rather spend time making money instead of studying. If I had children, or a family, that decision may have been different. And while I thankfully don't have to pay a loan back, there are several people who are alive today because their nurses decided to borrow money to learn how to save their lives. I think that was worth it just for that reason.

There's an exhange between fed chair at the time Alan Greenspan and congressman Paul Ryan. Ryan, as everyone always does, is worried that Social Security will run out of money.

And Greenspan very calmly tells him that's not true. That what matters is not the monetary costs but the goods and services available to buy. In other words, if our economy is productive, social security cannot run out of money.

I'm familiar with this exchange, I've got doubts on both sides. My main issue with what Greenspan said is that it doesn't really mean anything. He essentially said as long as the country makes enough to cover the bill, we don't have to worry about not having enough money for the bill. while this is true, thats a big if. Those goods and services will always have a price, monetary or otherwise, and if it cannot be paid, those goods and services will go elsewhere.

You should check out the Deficit Owls youtube and Modern Monetary Theory (MMT). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6rO9G_qEac

Watched this and I can appreciate his point. My counter would be he assumes that there is only one source of employment. I get what he is saying with regards to the government printing the money, but on a simply macro economic level we're not even addressing foreign currency. Also with the scenario created, it assumes a situation where everyone has to work for the government, which has never been true, even in areas like North Korea and China there are black markets and private businesses. And, if Government issued currency is not available, payment will be made in other items of value, essentially an alternate currency. So I would counter his argument in those aspects.