Just normal American Utopia...

[Guy Chamberlin]

5 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

does Peter embellish in his statements?  Sure, kinda like most people trying to make a point.  Look at your post as an example. 
 

 

The research and CBO disagree with you.  
 

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/56754

 

Until recently, the existing empirical evidence did not clearly show that increased borrowing through federal student loans contributed to the tuition increases. However, new research indicates that it played a role in increasing tuition for undergraduate programs.3Economists have estimated the extent to which expanding student loan availability contributed to colleges’ and universities’ ability to charge higher prices for the same services. To do that, economists studied periods in which students’ or parents’ ability to borrow for school changed sharply.

For example, David Lucca and coauthors studied the effects of increases in loan limits for subsidized and unsubsidized Stafford loans in academic years 2008 and 2009 on tuition for undergraduate programs. They estimated that schools accepting students with those types of loans increased their sticker price tuition between 20 cents and 60 cents for each dollar the loan limits increased and that the net price students paid after accounting for discounts also increased.4

Mahyar Kargar and William Mann studied the tightening, in 2011, of eligibility criteria for PLUS loans available to parents of undergraduate students. Many parents who had been eligible before the change were no longer eligible. The economists looked at the schools’ response to that reduction in available credit and found that schools that were more affected by the change raised their tuition less than other schools and received less revenue per student than other schools. Those findings indicate that the increased availability of financial aid led, at least in part, to tuition increases.5

 

Well the opening line "until recently" and the caveat "periods in which students or parents ability to borrow" strongly curtail Peter's conclusions. 

 

So "the minute the government started making student loans" is actually 50 years after the government started making student loans, and coincides with the 2008 financial meltdown when all the lending metrics took a hit. We could talk about how unregulated Capitalism bears some responsibility for that entire mess, but that would be stooping to Peter's level. 

 

It is of course during that same financial meltdown that universities looked shore up their own finances, and charging certain student loan beneficiaries more than others was definitely one strategy. But the entire exercise here is for Peter to claim the federal government (synonymous with Democrats) buys the votes of young people by giving them something for nothing. That's the end of any serious discussion or thoughtful correction, and that's pretty much the issue some of us are having over in the Republican Utopia thread. 

[Archy1221]

9 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

Well the opening line "until recently" and the caveat "periods in which students or parents ability to borrow" strongly curtail Peter's conclusions. 

Well, That was the study period because certain changes were made in loan availability/max allowed which allowed the researchers to highlight data points when other variabilities were the same I assume.  
 

The researchers didn’t say “that was only time period this conclusion is good for” that I saw.

[Archy1221]

14 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

But the entire exercise here is for Peter to claim the federal government (synonymous with Democrats) buys the votes of young people by giving them something for nothing. That's the end of any serious discussion or thoughtful correction, and that's pretty much the issue some of us are having over in the Republican Utopia thread.

Is it though?  The data is the data and the research backs up his point that the abundance of student loan money has driven up costs of secondary education.  Whatever boogeyman you take from that is up to you I guess. 

[Guy Chamberlin]

44 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

Is it though?  The data is the data and the research backs up his point that the abundance of student loan money has driven up costs of secondary education.  Whatever boogeyman you take from that is up to you I guess. 

 

I literally used Peter's choice of boogeyman and provided definitive examples of why his conclusion is highly selective, categorically inaccurate and/or flawed. For some reason you've already dropped your admission that student loan money is a "component" of varied and larger reasons for the cost of secondary education. Peter's not really interested in the cost of higher education here, either, as his conclusion confirms. 

 

It's an interesting subject worthy of thoughtful review and action. This clip isn't that. 

[Archy1221]

44 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

I literally used Peter's choice of boogeyman and provided definitive examples of why his conclusion is highly selective, categorically inaccurate and/or flawed. For some reason you've already dropped your admission that student loan money is a "component" of varied and larger reasons for the cost of secondary education. Peter's not really interested in the cost of higher education here, either, as his conclusion confirms. 

 

It's an interesting subject worthy of thoughtful review and action. This clip isn't that. 

Am I somehow talking English into a Chinese translator that’s causing what I believe to be your confusion on the issue.  
 

What Peter is not wrong about and why I posted the clip is the conclusion that an abundance of student loans availability has helped increase the cost of college tuition.   This really isn’t in doubt and I truly believe you understand this also but want to argue for reasons only you could know.   
 

44 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

For some reason you've already dropped your admission that student loan money is a "component" of varied and larger reasons for the cost of secondary education.

Have I ever stated student loan money is the only reason costs have risen?   I don’t believe so.  Therefore I haven’t dropped anything of the sort.

[Guy Chamberlin]

16 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

Am I somehow talking English into a Chinese translator that’s causing what I believe to be your confusion on the issue.  
 

What Peter is not wrong about and why I posted the clip is the conclusion that an abundance of student loans availability has helped increase the cost of college tuition.   This really isn’t in doubt and I truly believe you understand this also but want to argue for reasons only you could know.   
 

 

No confusion here. The part Peter is not wrong about is a country mile from the conclusion he makes, or the premise for that matter.

 

Since you could have summoned the CBO statement and its clear parameters from the beginning, one might think you preferred Peter's ridiculously partisan set up and payoff, which was the sole purpose of the clip.

 

Or as we say in my profession: wǒ bù zhīdào yídòng mén zhù shì bùshì yīgè zhōngwén chéngyǔ, dàn nǐ yòu zhème zuòle.

[Archy1221]

1 minute ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

No confusion here. The part Peter is not wrong about is a country mile from the conclusion he makes, or the premise for that matter.

 

Since you could have summoned the CBO statement and its clear parameters from the beginning, one might think you preferred Peter's ridiculously partisan set up and payoff, which was the sole purpose of the clip.

 

Or as we say in my profession: wǒ bù zhīdào yídòng mén zhù shì bùshì yīgè zhōngwén chéngyǔ, dàn nǐ yòu zhème zuòle.

[BigRedBuster]

I’m old enough to remember some people saying the CBO is always wrong.  

[Archy1221]

34 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

I’m old enough to remember some people saying the CBO is always wrong.  

They almost always are well off when trying to extrapolate forward looking data.   The interesting thing is, it wasn’t their study data and it was looking backward.   Surely you are old enough to know the difference 

[BigRedBuster]

 

[BigRedBuster]

 

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

[DevoHusker]

 

 

[RedDenver]

1 hour ago, DevoHusker said:

 

 

Benjamin Franklin is quite a bit more famous than Kissinger.

[ZRod]

5 hours ago, RedDenver said:

Benjamin Franklin is quite a bit more famous than Kissinger.

Also, a lot less of a war criminal.