Posted on 04/21/2008 9:06:12 PM PDT by jazusamo
A front-page headline in the New York Times captures much of the economic confusion of our time: "Fewer Options Open to Pay for Costs of College."
The whole article is about the increased costs of college, the difficulties parents have in paying those costs, and the difficulties that both students and parents have in trying to borrow the money needed when their current incomes will not cover college costs.
All that is fine for a purely "human interest" story. But making economic policies on the basis of human interest stories -- which is what politicians increasingly do, especially in election years -- has a big down side for those people who do not happen to be in the categories chosen to write human interest stories about.
The general thrust of human interest stories about people with economic problems, whether they are college students or people faced with mortgage foreclosures, is that the government ought to come to their rescue, presumably because the government has so much money and these individuals have so little.
Like most "deep pockets," however, the government's deep pockets come from vast numbers of people with much shallower pockets. In many cases, the average taxpayer has lower income than the people on whom the government lavishes its financial favors.
Costs are not just things for government to help people to pay. Costs are telling us something that is dangerous to ignore.
The inadequacy of resources to produce everything that everyone wants is the fundamental fact of life in every economy -- capitalist, socialist or feudal. This means that the real cost of anything consists of all the other things that could have been produced with those same resources.
Building a bridge means using up resources that could have been used building homes or a hospital. Going to college means using up vast amounts of resources that could be used for all sorts of other things.
Prices force people to economize. Subsidizing prices enables people to take more resources away from other uses without having to weigh the real cost.
Without market prices that convey the real costs of resources denied to alternative users, people waste.
That was the basic reason why Soviet industries used more electricity than American industries to produce a smaller output than American industries produced. That is why they used more steel and cement to produce less than Japan or Germany produced when making things that required steel and cement.
When you pay the full cost -- that is, the full value of the resources in alternative uses -- you tend to economize. When you pay less than that, you tend to waste.
Whether someone goes to college at all, what kind of college, and whether they remain on campus to do postgraduate work, are all questions about how much of the resources that other people want are to be taken away and used by those on whom we have arbitrarily focused in human interest stories.
This is not just a question about robbing Peter to pay Paul. The whole society's standard of living is lower when resources are shifted from higher valued uses to lower valued uses and wasted by those who are subsidized or otherwise allowed to pay less.
The fact that the Soviet economic system allowed industries to use resources wastefully meant that the price was paid not in money but in a far lower standard of living for the Soviet people than the available technology and resources were capable of producing.
The Soviet Union was one of the world's most richly endowed nations in natural resources -- if not the most richly endowed. Yet many of its people lived almost as if they were in the Third World.
How many people would go to college if they had to pay the real cost of all the resources taken from other parts of the economy? Probably a lot fewer people.
Moreover, when paying their own money, there would probably not be nearly as many people parting with hard cash to study feel-good subjects with rap sessions instead of serious study.
There would probably be fewer people lingering on campus for the social scene or as a refuge from adult responsibilities in the real world.
Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute and author of Basic Economics: A Citizen's Guide to the Economy.
I really like the way he has explained the basic concept of Opportunity Cost....and how only free economics will make the calculation of OC in decision making...Dr. Sowell is the best.
ping
I schooled my own children. My children saw to what lengths and sacrifices their father and I underwent so that they could be properly educated, and to be aware of but not indoctrinated with the current and trendy "idiot think" so prevalent in educational institutes in this country.
My now grown children are "winners" by current standards. Celebrity-status in the local venues. I never looked for that to be the goal nor a result of why I did what I did. They each just turned out to be the nicest, most civil and intelligent of young folks that people from all sorts of venues - dentists, receptionists, teachers, administrators, bosses, co-workers, grocery clerks all feel compelled to tell me how wonderful, unique, thoughtful, and gifted they each think my kids are.
I can only thank them for their kind words; knowing, not in a million years could I ever adequately convey to them how these results came to be in my children.
There were angels along the way who stepped in to help me protect my children from invasive and overreaching bureacracies and special interest groups. There were angels who bucked me up when I was most under attack for what I was doing. And there were angels who saw fit to bring over an extra loaf of bread here and yon, saying they'd gotten a deal. There were angels everywhere.
And not a single one of these Angels was giving me a single dime or assistance out of a bureacracy or taxpayer dollar.
That, right there, is how it all came to be. I live "Mother's Day" every single day of the year.
Dr. Sowell has written a memoir, “A Personal Odyssey.” It’s very enjoyable, and displays a personality that often doesn’t come through his more academic writing.
That's exactly how I feel! And I'm always inspired by the comments of people whose children have turned out well. (I've still got my fingers crossed :-).
When you donate to the food bank, you’re providing for someone else’s NEEDS, so they don’t have to spend their resources on those needs.
Then, they can go out and spend their resources on their WANTS, while you don’t.
The two groups are showing opposite responsibility behavior.
Time for kind hearted Christians to understand that there is huge value in the concept of “he who will not work, nor shall he eat”.
This provides incentive to work. Work builds character and independence, which is good for the individual. Everyone should work so that he will have something to give to those in need.
I have a different “order” of recommended Sowell reading, or “Sowell food”.
“Basic Economics” first and foremost lays the foundations.
“Applied Economics, thinking beyond stage one” expands your economic understanding to the effects of policy.
“Conflict of Visions” examines the mindsets involved in implementing policies that have the effects described in the first two books.
“Vision of the Anointed” examines the mindset of the left and the damage it causes.
From there, read at will, as you will have all the foundations that you need for further “Sowell food”.
bookmark
Congressman Billybob
Latest article, "The Ultimate, Inside Baseball -- the 2008 Democrat Convention"
And I wish him a long, long productive life.
For Obama to reach out to Dr. Sowell would mean Obama going through a change he’s surely not about to make.
I’m confident you’ve read what Sowell has said about him, he is definitely not one of Sowell’s favorite people. :)
You are fortunate to have children turn out so well but more importantly your children are fortunate to have you, congrats to you all.
My daughter is home schooling her three and though the oldest is only fifteen the benefits are showing. It’s a shame more don’t home school their kids but then many simply don’t have the time or the inclination to do it, it’s hard work.
This is also a human interest story. However, if college freshmen, or even better their parents were required to write an essay on the expected cost/return of their college education on Orientation Day most college students would go home and call up their local plumbers/pipefitters union.
Obama is an economically illiterate elitist Marxist. Those all go together.
He has no interest in understanding economics, because to him, it’s all about controlling the distribution of wealth from a central point of power.
Yes, Sowell writes in “good faith” - leftists NEVER argue or make policy in “good faith”.
Well said, CBB and right on the money!
I had some cloitured liberal elementary teacher gasp in horror when I said “college isn’t for everyone”.
It was pretty funny.
She has a “Bush lied, people died” bumper sticker.
oops, “cloistered” was what I was going for -
she has no friends or associates who don’t think just like she does.
That's hilarious on it's face but when you stop and think about people with a mindset like that teaching our children it's very scary. People like that should be barred from getting anywhere near a school.
I attended a speech by Dr Norman Geisler this past weekend. Takeaway quote:
“Do not sacrifice your children on the pagan altar of public education.”
Now as the service industries begin to flee overseas, followed by the financial, college is not looking like a good investment.
We are in a downward curve to a third world nation. We no longer make much, our financial house of cards is collapsing, and the only thing we have left is our agriculture. Which is going to be taken by UN fiat one of these days.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.