Originally posted by: destroytheweak
Thanks for providing the source to your statistic that you pulled out of your ass in order to make your argument.
I was wrong in saying that government used to not be involved in the college education system. I was in a rush and was typing on my phone. State's have been involved in funding their universities for a while now. I meant the "federal governments" involvement in the college education system.
for you to facepalm truly shows your lack of knowledge in the subject so you mine as well lock yourself out of this thread since your mental capacity can't handle a rational discussion. If it could you would respond with more then a picture, since I was honestly interested in where that 80% cut came from. for you to not even respond not only proves how ignorant you are, but how you try to spit shit out and back it up with numbers that you could easily make up. If you're facepalming over the fact that government involvement does not raise prices MOST of the time you should probably exit not only this thread, but also any economic discussions in this forum.
then again, the federal government's largest involvement in higher education, after ww2 with the g.i. bill in the 1940's-50's, which more than doubled enrollment well beyond the capacity of existing institutions, was a phenomenal success and helped birth what is still regarded as one of america's most prosperous periods.
historian ed humes has said of it,
"The scientists and engineers and teachers and thinkers who brought in the information age, who took us to the moon, who waged the cold war, you name it - all those men and women were educated through the GI Bill." click here for link
no one said it would cost nothing, just that the return on the investment would make it well worthwhile. as a student of economics you should be familiar with the idea that failing to make capital investment when needed is an inexcusable failure. as china, india, brazil and other ascendant countries begin to outlap us in per capita productivity, skill levels, literacy, etc., although not even coming close to the countries like germany that already have, the question really comes down to whether the hegemony based on a strategy of short term, military brute force that we now enjoy is more cost efficient and sustainable than one based on the long term development of things like skill level and, well, actual merit. the answer may be revealed in your lifetime, and to quote dr. zaius,
"You may not like what you find."