Absolutely. Our kids NEED to know how capitalism raises entire societies out of poverty better than any other system - AINEC.
Capitalism doesn't raise entire societies out of poverty. Capitalism's biggest fans don't make that argument. Didn't any of you girls take any economics courses?
Anyway, the converse of Black Lives Matter is that they don't.
Then what does?
And, in fact capitalism’s biggest fans, indeed even its intellectual antithesis, say otherwise. Even Marx acknowledged capitalism’s unique ability to reduce and often entirely limit, scarcity.
Interested in your serious response here.
Regulated capitalism with progressive taxation can do it, but that's not what the TugCon universe is preaching. Unregulated, barely taxed capitalism is their ideal, and that does NOT lift "entire societies out of poverty". As every economist worth a damn knows, unregulated capitalism explodes like a diesel engine without a governor.
The funny thing is, the die hard anarcho-capitalists here think capitalism is fragile. But capitalism doesn't whither in the presence of regulation; it thrives. It does so because it is vital and it can harness human motivations to increase wealth for a society, but not without taking its classic problems into account as well.
I responded to another one of your posts, and that response applies equally here. Even purists would probably agree with some amount of regulation. For example, capital markets need oversight. It's basic law enforcement, really. Without regulatory protection from fraud, market participants would have little faith in capital markets. If that were to happen on a large scale, capital aggregation wouldn't exist as we know it today and we'd not have the economy and the plethora of goods and services that we presently enjoy. So there's that level of regulated capitalism.
The problem is one of degree. Serious voices here would engage in a reasonable discussion about the right kinds and degrees of regulation. But they are correct in noting that there has been a tectonic shift in the number of people who sincerely think we ought to junk our capitalist system and revisit hte concept of private property and wealth distribution. I see it on social media and directly from those I know who are in their 20s and early 30s. They are convinced capitalism has run its course and that it's time for a new system. They have no idea the privileged (true "privilege"; not made-up privilege) position from which they make those assertions, and they have even less idea of how life would look and feel for them under the yoke of a different system.
I don't love capitalism for its own sake. I love it because it works at this particular epoch in human history. We haven't come up with anything better. We may, and probably will, evolve from it to something even better; but that will be a long time in coming IMO. Given where we are today, it's still the best system.
People who want to ditch capitalism perceive it as not working for them and unlikely to work for them. Part of that is just youth, but the current 20 and 30 somethings really do face a much tougher road than old goats like me did. People on this board paid less than $1,000 a year in college tuition, for example; I'm one of them. Housing wasn't an unaffordable luxury either. And the youngsters aren't having any kids, which will have long term ramifications and should indicate to us that something has changed.
Capitalism isn't really going away anytime soon, despite the sloganeering. But the rules favoring capital relative to labor have made it very unlikely that the young generation will ever come to have any affection for capitalism absent some course corrections and meaningful improvements to their lives. You know as well as I do that Communism got a toe hold in America during the 1930s. FDR's New Deal was very much intended to save capitalism. I'd like to acknowledge capitalism's shortcomings, and address them, without getting rid of it.
You are using the example of skyrocketing college tuition to illustrate the problems of capitalism? wtf?
Absolutely. Our kids NEED to know how capitalism raises entire societies out of poverty better than any other system - AINEC.
Capitalism doesn't raise entire societies out of poverty. Capitalism's biggest fans don't make that argument. Didn't any of you girls take any economics courses?
Anyway, the converse of Black Lives Matter is that they don't.
Then what does?
And, in fact capitalism’s biggest fans, indeed even its intellectual antithesis, say otherwise. Even Marx acknowledged capitalism’s unique ability to reduce and often entirely limit, scarcity.
Interested in your serious response here.
Regulated capitalism with progressive taxation can do it, but that's not what the TugCon universe is preaching. Unregulated, barely taxed capitalism is their ideal, and that does NOT lift "entire societies out of poverty". As every economist worth a damn knows, unregulated capitalism explodes like a diesel engine without a governor.
The funny thing is, the die hard anarcho-capitalists here think capitalism is fragile. But capitalism doesn't whither in the presence of regulation; it thrives. It does so because it is vital and it can harness human motivations to increase wealth for a society, but not without taking its classic problems into account as well.
I responded to another one of your posts, and that response applies equally here. Even purists would probably agree with some amount of regulation. For example, capital markets need oversight. It's basic law enforcement, really. Without regulatory protection from fraud, market participants would have little faith in capital markets. If that were to happen on a large scale, capital aggregation wouldn't exist as we know it today and we'd not have the economy and the plethora of goods and services that we presently enjoy. So there's that level of regulated capitalism.
The problem is one of degree. Serious voices here would engage in a reasonable discussion about the right kinds and degrees of regulation. But they are correct in noting that there has been a tectonic shift in the number of people who sincerely think we ought to junk our capitalist system and revisit hte concept of private property and wealth distribution. I see it on social media and directly from those I know who are in their 20s and early 30s. They are convinced capitalism has run its course and that it's time for a new system. They have no idea the privileged (true "privilege"; not made-up privilege) position from which they make those assertions, and they have even less idea of how life would look and feel for them under the yoke of a different system.
I don't love capitalism for its own sake. I love it because it works at this particular epoch in human history. We haven't come up with anything better. We may, and probably will, evolve from it to something even better; but that will be a long time in coming IMO. Given where we are today, it's still the best system.
People who want to ditch capitalism perceive it as not working for them and unlikely to work for them. Part of that is just youth, but the current 20 and 30 somethings really do face a much tougher road than old goats like me did. People on this board paid less than $1,000 a year in college tuition, for example; I'm one of them. Housing wasn't an unaffordable luxury either. And the youngsters aren't having any kids, which will have long term ramifications and should indicate to us that something has changed.
Capitalism isn't really going away anytime soon, despite the sloganeering. But the rules favoring capital relative to labor have made it very unlikely that the young generation will ever come to have any affection for capitalism absent some course corrections and meaningful improvements to their lives. You know as well as I do that Communism got a toe hold in America during the 1930s. FDR's New Deal was very much intended to save capitalism. I'd like to acknowledge capitalism's shortcomings, and address them, without getting rid of it.
You are using the example of skyrocketing college tuition to illustrate the problems of capitalism? wtf?
Why don't you just pretend that I am so that you can more easily avoid engaging with what I actually said?
Absolutely. Our kids NEED to know how capitalism raises entire societies out of poverty better than any other system - AINEC.
Capitalism doesn't raise entire societies out of poverty. Capitalism's biggest fans don't make that argument. Didn't any of you girls take any economics courses?
Anyway, the converse of Black Lives Matter is that they don't.
Then what does?
And, in fact capitalism’s biggest fans, indeed even its intellectual antithesis, say otherwise. Even Marx acknowledged capitalism’s unique ability to reduce and often entirely limit, scarcity.
Interested in your serious response here.
Regulated capitalism with progressive taxation can do it, but that's not what the TugCon universe is preaching. Unregulated, barely taxed capitalism is their ideal, and that does NOT lift "entire societies out of poverty". As every economist worth a damn knows, unregulated capitalism explodes like a diesel engine without a governor.
The funny thing is, the die hard anarcho-capitalists here think capitalism is fragile. But capitalism doesn't whither in the presence of regulation; it thrives. It does so because it is vital and it can harness human motivations to increase wealth for a society, but not without taking its classic problems into account as well.
I responded to another one of your posts, and that response applies equally here. Even purists would probably agree with some amount of regulation. For example, capital markets need oversight. It's basic law enforcement, really. Without regulatory protection from fraud, market participants would have little faith in capital markets. If that were to happen on a large scale, capital aggregation wouldn't exist as we know it today and we'd not have the economy and the plethora of goods and services that we presently enjoy. So there's that level of regulated capitalism.
The problem is one of degree. Serious voices here would engage in a reasonable discussion about the right kinds and degrees of regulation. But they are correct in noting that there has been a tectonic shift in the number of people who sincerely think we ought to junk our capitalist system and revisit hte concept of private property and wealth distribution. I see it on social media and directly from those I know who are in their 20s and early 30s. They are convinced capitalism has run its course and that it's time for a new system. They have no idea the privileged (true "privilege"; not made-up privilege) position from which they make those assertions, and they have even less idea of how life would look and feel for them under the yoke of a different system.
I don't love capitalism for its own sake. I love it because it works at this particular epoch in human history. We haven't come up with anything better. We may, and probably will, evolve from it to something even better; but that will be a long time in coming IMO. Given where we are today, it's still the best system.
Poont of clarity, I do actually love freedom for its own sake. Capitalism is basically freedom of commerce.
Despite the Dazzlers desperate attempts at a straw man even I have talked about negative externalities and the role of government in mitigating them.(A term which the dazzler previously didn't know until reading it here).
It was definitely wise to let him open his mouth and prove what a fucking fool he is. Good advice @creepycoug
Absolutely. Our kids NEED to know how capitalism raises entire societies out of poverty better than any other system - AINEC.
Capitalism doesn't raise entire societies out of poverty. Capitalism's biggest fans don't make that argument. Didn't any of you girls take any economics courses?
Anyway, the converse of Black Lives Matter is that they don't.
Then what does?
And, in fact capitalism’s biggest fans, indeed even its intellectual antithesis, say otherwise. Even Marx acknowledged capitalism’s unique ability to reduce and often entirely limit, scarcity.
Interested in your serious response here.
Regulated capitalism with progressive taxation can do it, but that's not what the TugCon universe is preaching. Unregulated, barely taxed capitalism is their ideal, and that does NOT lift "entire societies out of poverty". As every economist worth a damn knows, unregulated capitalism explodes like a diesel engine without a governor.
The funny thing is, the die hard anarcho-capitalists here think capitalism is fragile. But capitalism doesn't whither in the presence of regulation; it thrives. It does so because it is vital and it can harness human motivations to increase wealth for a society, but not without taking its classic problems into account as well.
I responded to another one of your posts, and that response applies equally here. Even purists would probably agree with some amount of regulation. For example, capital markets need oversight. It's basic law enforcement, really. Without regulatory protection from fraud, market participants would have little faith in capital markets. If that were to happen on a large scale, capital aggregation wouldn't exist as we know it today and we'd not have the economy and the plethora of goods and services that we presently enjoy. So there's that level of regulated capitalism.
The problem is one of degree. Serious voices here would engage in a reasonable discussion about the right kinds and degrees of regulation. But they are correct in noting that there has been a tectonic shift in the number of people who sincerely think we ought to junk our capitalist system and revisit hte concept of private property and wealth distribution. I see it on social media and directly from those I know who are in their 20s and early 30s. They are convinced capitalism has run its course and that it's time for a new system. They have no idea the privileged (true "privilege"; not made-up privilege) position from which they make those assertions, and they have even less idea of how life would look and feel for them under the yoke of a different system.
I don't love capitalism for its own sake. I love it because it works at this particular epoch in human history. We haven't come up with anything better. We may, and probably will, evolve from it to something even better; but that will be a long time in coming IMO. Given where we are today, it's still the best system.
Poont of clarity, I do actually love freedom for its own sake. Capitalism is basically freedom of commerce.
Despite the Dazzlers desperate attempts at a straw man even I have talked about negative externalities and the role of government in mitigating them.(A term which the dazzler previously didn't know until reading it here).
It was definitely wise to let him open his mouth and prove what a fucking fool he is. Good advice @creepycoug
Please. I was a Kane Hall intellectual before your mothers even made their withdrawal at the sperm bank.
Absolutely. Our kids NEED to know how capitalism raises entire societies out of poverty better than any other system - AINEC.
Capitalism doesn't raise entire societies out of poverty. Capitalism's biggest fans don't make that argument. Didn't any of you girls take any economics courses?
Anyway, the converse of Black Lives Matter is that they don't.
Not even the Chinese would agree with you.
China is your example of unfettered capitalism?
Good luck with that.
Who said unfettered? The point is that even Communist China can thank countless ventures into capitalism for boosting nearly a billion people into the middle class.
Perhaps you missed the TugCon memo. When they say capitalism, they're talking laissez-faire. Anything less is socialism.
But capitalism is laissez-faire. That is its intellectual essence. Of course we make exceptions and dabble in socialist policy (and of course when we do that it's almost always fraught with inefficiency, but that's another chat). But to support capitalism is to support liberty and freedom for markets to work things out. Regulation is necessary on the margins. Most people acknowledge that. But it's always a question of degree and necessesity. In the end, though, to believe in capitalism is to believe in allowing markets to work as free from external interference as possible.
Public highways built by private labor by the lowest bidder was an efficient regulatory project until the tax revenue was captured by big money, big labor. Now we get expensive trains to nowhere, dangerous public transportation and the outlawing of ride sharing in Cali. Basic traffic rules need to be enforced but now we have the traffic cops being treated as a revenue system with fines and penalties out of synch with reality.
"People who want to ditch capitalism perceive it as not working for them and unlikely to work for them. Part of that is just youth, but the current 20 and 30 somethings really do face a much tougher road than old goats like me did. People on this board paid less than $1,000 a year in college tuition, for example; I'm one of them. Housing wasn't an unaffordable luxury either. And the youngsters aren't having any kids, which will have long term ramifications and should indicate to us that something has changed."
Geezus dazzler. We have had an explosion of government regulation of the public schools and housing and you are shocked that they are more expensive? Like phuck you have an MBA. Just look at all that cheap housing in Cuba. For some reason, no one is trying to illegally enter Cuba for free sh*t.
Absolutely. Our kids NEED to know how capitalism raises entire societies out of poverty better than any other system - AINEC.
Capitalism doesn't raise entire societies out of poverty. Capitalism's biggest fans don't make that argument. Didn't any of you girls take any economics courses?
Anyway, the converse of Black Lives Matter is that they don't.
Then what does?
And, in fact capitalism’s biggest fans, indeed even its intellectual antithesis, say otherwise. Even Marx acknowledged capitalism’s unique ability to reduce and often entirely limit, scarcity.
Interested in your serious response here.
Regulated capitalism with progressive taxation can do it, but that's not what the TugCon universe is preaching. Unregulated, barely taxed capitalism is their ideal, and that does NOT lift "entire societies out of poverty". As every economist worth a damn knows, unregulated capitalism explodes like a diesel engine without a governor.
The funny thing is, the die hard anarcho-capitalists here think capitalism is fragile. But capitalism doesn't whither in the presence of regulation; it thrives. It does so because it is vital and it can harness human motivations to increase wealth for a society, but not without taking its classic problems into account as well.
True, who can forget about well capitalism works in countries like North Korea, Venezuela, Cuba, Zimbabwe, or the Soviet Union. Capitalism thrives in regulation!!!
I am dumbfounded at this guy. I also beat you by 53 seconds. "Heavy regulation is the engine of growth!" - said no economist ever
Sure, obviously when I said regulation is necessary I was advocating criminalizing private industry, said no MBA ever.
You should actually listen to the people you vote for
You first.
I love a booming economy. That's why I voted for Trump
Biden's ban on fracking alone is an economy killer
Despite it being a regulation
One of the classic economic problems with the free market, identified by the most pro-capitalist econ faculty you can ever imagine--the UW econ and business faculty of the 1970s--is externalities. What, besides no regulation on fracking at all, are you advocating?
There is nothing on earth that cant be regulated into the ground under the justification of "externality".... But that wasn't what you originally said...
Maybe try again without the general "capitalism doesn't whither in the presence of regulation; it thrives."
Here Ill do it for you... "Capitalism requires a delicate balance of free market individual liberty working in conjunction with regulation mostly around monopolies, individual property rights, and intellectual property. There are some cases where healthy debate and small regulations around specific, and limited, externalities should be implemented via the established legal process due to the particularly unbounded definition of externality and historical propensity of the State to collect power."
If you are just inarticulately trying to say; "big business loves big government" I agree... but I dont think that is what you are saying...
You mean there aren't just two camps? "Regulation Bad!" and "Regulation Good!"?
You'll remind me when a TugCon ever did anything but celebrate all deregulation, won't you?
It must piss you off that you have to (grudgingly) agree with me.
There's a million examples among smarter posters in the Tug of explaining the need for reasonable regulations.
But now that your ovaries are tied up in a bunch, it's not worth the effort it would take to show you.
Maybe when you're off the rag.
Turd could do it. He just doesn't want to.
People know you're a purveyor of false information and an idiot. I don't need to remind them.
You do a great job of that all by yourself. Daily.
Absolutely. Our kids NEED to know how capitalism raises entire societies out of poverty better than any other system - AINEC.
Capitalism doesn't raise entire societies out of poverty. Capitalism's biggest fans don't make that argument. Didn't any of you girls take any economics courses?
Anyway, the converse of Black Lives Matter is that they don't.
Not even the Chinese would agree with you.
China is your example of unfettered capitalism?
Good luck with that.
Who said unfettered? The point is that even Communist China can thank countless ventures into capitalism for boosting nearly a billion people into the middle class.
Perhaps you missed the TugCon memo. When they say capitalism, they're talking laissez-faire. Anything less is socialism.
But capitalism is laissez-faire. That is its intellectual essence. Of course we make exceptions and dabble in socialist policy (and of course when we do that it's almost always fraught with inefficiency, but that's another chat). But to support capitalism is to support liberty and freedom for markets to work things out. Regulation is necessary on the margins. Most people acknowledge that. But it's always a question of degree and necessesity. In the end, though, to believe in capitalism is to believe in allowing markets to work as free from external interference as possible.
The argument was that "entire societies" are lifted out of poverty by capitalism, which you agree means virtually unrestrained capitalism. You can make an argument that you want unrestrained capitalism despite its harsher effects, but you cannot make the argument that it lifts entire societies out of poverty. It does not do that.
If it doesn't lift one life out of poverty, then the millions it does lift up do not justify continuing with the system.
Absolutely. Our kids NEED to know how capitalism raises entire societies out of poverty better than any other system - AINEC.
Capitalism doesn't raise entire societies out of poverty. Capitalism's biggest fans don't make that argument. Didn't any of you girls take any economics courses?
Anyway, the converse of Black Lives Matter is that they don't.
Then what does?
And, in fact capitalism’s biggest fans, indeed even its intellectual antithesis, say otherwise. Even Marx acknowledged capitalism’s unique ability to reduce and often entirely limit, scarcity.
Interested in your serious response here.
Regulated capitalism with progressive taxation can do it, but that's not what the TugCon universe is preaching. Unregulated, barely taxed capitalism is their ideal, and that does NOT lift "entire societies out of poverty". As every economist worth a damn knows, unregulated capitalism explodes like a diesel engine without a governor.
The funny thing is, the die hard anarcho-capitalists here think capitalism is fragile. But capitalism doesn't whither in the presence of regulation; it thrives. It does so because it is vital and it can harness human motivations to increase wealth for a society, but not without taking its classic problems into account as well.
I responded to another one of your posts, and that response applies equally here. Even purists would probably agree with some amount of regulation. For example, capital markets need oversight. It's basic law enforcement, really. Without regulatory protection from fraud, market participants would have little faith in capital markets. If that were to happen on a large scale, capital aggregation wouldn't exist as we know it today and we'd not have the economy and the plethora of goods and services that we presently enjoy. So there's that level of regulated capitalism.
The problem is one of degree. Serious voices here would engage in a reasonable discussion about the right kinds and degrees of regulation. But they are correct in noting that there has been a tectonic shift in the number of people who sincerely think we ought to junk our capitalist system and revisit hte concept of private property and wealth distribution. I see it on social media and directly from those I know who are in their 20s and early 30s. They are convinced capitalism has run its course and that it's time for a new system. They have no idea the privileged (true "privilege"; not made-up privilege) position from which they make those assertions, and they have even less idea of how life would look and feel for them under the yoke of a different system.
I don't love capitalism for its own sake. I love it because it works at this particular epoch in human history. We haven't come up with anything better. We may, and probably will, evolve from it to something even better; but that will be a long time in coming IMO. Given where we are today, it's still the best system.
People who want to ditch capitalism perceive it as not working for them and unlikely to work for them. Part of that is just youth, but the current 20 and 30 somethings really do face a much tougher road than old goats like me did. People on this board paid less than $1,000 a year in college tuition, for example; I'm one of them. Housing wasn't an unaffordable luxury either. And the youngsters aren't having any kids, which will have long term ramifications and should indicate to us that something has changed.
Capitalism isn't really going away anytime soon, despite the sloganeering. But the rules favoring capital relative to labor have made it very unlikely that the young generation will ever come to have any affection for capitalism absent some course corrections and meaningful improvements to their lives. You know as well as I do that Communism got a toe hold in America during the 1930s. FDR's New Deal was very much intended to save capitalism. I'd like to acknowledge capitalism's shortcomings, and address them, without getting rid of it.
Horseshit. My kids are in that demo and doing fine. They both had your commie bullshit stuffed into their heads by their socialist teachers in MS and HS, and then something brilliant happened: They got jobs.
The oldest worked three summers in a row at a restaurant and saved 4k to 5k per summer. The younger one is on a similar track in a different, but popular industry. And their minimum wage is 5 to 6 times what mine was in HS, while housing costs have only tripled or quadrupled at most. I have sat down with both of them and figured out how much further ahead they are already than I was at their age and they'll both land jobs, presumably, earning way more than I did, by comparison, adjusted for inflation, when I got out of school.
You wanna talk college costs? It's morons like you who support the bloated administrative, big government influenced offices of diversity and inclusion, which duplicate offices already on campus, and run the Kafka-esque kangaroo sexual assault departments, officers and fake courts, all on the students tab. You want to control college costs? Eliminate those completely unnecessary administrative departments that big-government loving dependents like yourself need to survive.
Absolutely. Our kids NEED to know how capitalism raises entire societies out of poverty better than any other system - AINEC.
Capitalism doesn't raise entire societies out of poverty. Capitalism's biggest fans don't make that argument. Didn't any of you girls take any economics courses?
Anyway, the converse of Black Lives Matter is that they don't.
Then what does?
And, in fact capitalism’s biggest fans, indeed even its intellectual antithesis, say otherwise. Even Marx acknowledged capitalism’s unique ability to reduce and often entirely limit, scarcity.
Interested in your serious response here.
Regulated capitalism with progressive taxation can do it, but that's not what the TugCon universe is preaching. Unregulated, barely taxed capitalism is their ideal, and that does NOT lift "entire societies out of poverty". As every economist worth a damn knows, unregulated capitalism explodes like a diesel engine without a governor.
The funny thing is, the die hard anarcho-capitalists here think capitalism is fragile. But capitalism doesn't whither in the presence of regulation; it thrives. It does so because it is vital and it can harness human motivations to increase wealth for a society, but not without taking its classic problems into account as well.
I responded to another one of your posts, and that response applies equally here. Even purists would probably agree with some amount of regulation. For example, capital markets need oversight. It's basic law enforcement, really. Without regulatory protection from fraud, market participants would have little faith in capital markets. If that were to happen on a large scale, capital aggregation wouldn't exist as we know it today and we'd not have the economy and the plethora of goods and services that we presently enjoy. So there's that level of regulated capitalism.
The problem is one of degree. Serious voices here would engage in a reasonable discussion about the right kinds and degrees of regulation. But they are correct in noting that there has been a tectonic shift in the number of people who sincerely think we ought to junk our capitalist system and revisit hte concept of private property and wealth distribution. I see it on social media and directly from those I know who are in their 20s and early 30s. They are convinced capitalism has run its course and that it's time for a new system. They have no idea the privileged (true "privilege"; not made-up privilege) position from which they make those assertions, and they have even less idea of how life would look and feel for them under the yoke of a different system.
I don't love capitalism for its own sake. I love it because it works at this particular epoch in human history. We haven't come up with anything better. We may, and probably will, evolve from it to something even better; but that will be a long time in coming IMO. Given where we are today, it's still the best system.
People who want to ditch capitalism perceive it as not working for them and unlikely to work for them. Part of that is just youth, but the current 20 and 30 somethings really do face a much tougher road than old goats like me did. People on this board paid less than $1,000 a year in college tuition, for example; I'm one of them. Housing wasn't an unaffordable luxury either. And the youngsters aren't having any kids, which will have long term ramifications and should indicate to us that something has changed.
Capitalism isn't really going away anytime soon, despite the sloganeering. But the rules favoring capital relative to labor have made it very unlikely that the young generation will ever come to have any affection for capitalism absent some course corrections and meaningful improvements to their lives. You know as well as I do that Communism got a toe hold in America during the 1930s. FDR's New Deal was very much intended to save capitalism. I'd like to acknowledge capitalism's shortcomings, and address them, without getting rid of it.
Do you feel that the rising cost of a college education is somehow the fault of capitalism Dazzler?
Absolutely. Our kids NEED to know how capitalism raises entire societies out of poverty better than any other system - AINEC.
Capitalism doesn't raise entire societies out of poverty. Capitalism's biggest fans don't make that argument. Didn't any of you girls take any economics courses?
Anyway, the converse of Black Lives Matter is that they don't.
Then what does?
And, in fact capitalism’s biggest fans, indeed even its intellectual antithesis, say otherwise. Even Marx acknowledged capitalism’s unique ability to reduce and often entirely limit, scarcity.
Interested in your serious response here.
Regulated capitalism with progressive taxation can do it, but that's not what the TugCon universe is preaching. Unregulated, barely taxed capitalism is their ideal, and that does NOT lift "entire societies out of poverty". As every economist worth a damn knows, unregulated capitalism explodes like a diesel engine without a governor.
The funny thing is, the die hard anarcho-capitalists here think capitalism is fragile. But capitalism doesn't whither in the presence of regulation; it thrives. It does so because it is vital and it can harness human motivations to increase wealth for a society, but not without taking its classic problems into account as well.
I responded to another one of your posts, and that response applies equally here. Even purists would probably agree with some amount of regulation. For example, capital markets need oversight. It's basic law enforcement, really. Without regulatory protection from fraud, market participants would have little faith in capital markets. If that were to happen on a large scale, capital aggregation wouldn't exist as we know it today and we'd not have the economy and the plethora of goods and services that we presently enjoy. So there's that level of regulated capitalism.
The problem is one of degree. Serious voices here would engage in a reasonable discussion about the right kinds and degrees of regulation. But they are correct in noting that there has been a tectonic shift in the number of people who sincerely think we ought to junk our capitalist system and revisit hte concept of private property and wealth distribution. I see it on social media and directly from those I know who are in their 20s and early 30s. They are convinced capitalism has run its course and that it's time for a new system. They have no idea the privileged (true "privilege"; not made-up privilege) position from which they make those assertions, and they have even less idea of how life would look and feel for them under the yoke of a different system.
I don't love capitalism for its own sake. I love it because it works at this particular epoch in human history. We haven't come up with anything better. We may, and probably will, evolve from it to something even better; but that will be a long time in coming IMO. Given where we are today, it's still the best system.
People who want to ditch capitalism perceive it as not working for them and unlikely to work for them. Part of that is just youth, but the current 20 and 30 somethings really do face a much tougher road than old goats like me did. People on this board paid less than $1,000 a year in college tuition, for example; I'm one of them. Housing wasn't an unaffordable luxury either. And the youngsters aren't having any kids, which will have long term ramifications and should indicate to us that something has changed.
Capitalism isn't really going away anytime soon, despite the sloganeering. But the rules favoring capital relative to labor have made it very unlikely that the young generation will ever come to have any affection for capitalism absent some course corrections and meaningful improvements to their lives. You know as well as I do that Communism got a toe hold in America during the 1930s. FDR's New Deal was very much intended to save capitalism. I'd like to acknowledge capitalism's shortcomings, and address them, without getting rid of it.
You are using the example of skyrocketing college tuition to illustrate the problems of capitalism? wtf?
Sorry, I responded to him before seeing your post.
Absolutely. Our kids NEED to know how capitalism raises entire societies out of poverty better than any other system - AINEC.
Capitalism doesn't raise entire societies out of poverty. Capitalism's biggest fans don't make that argument. Didn't any of you girls take any economics courses?
Anyway, the converse of Black Lives Matter is that they don't.
Then what does?
And, in fact capitalism’s biggest fans, indeed even its intellectual antithesis, say otherwise. Even Marx acknowledged capitalism’s unique ability to reduce and often entirely limit, scarcity.
Interested in your serious response here.
Regulated capitalism with progressive taxation can do it, but that's not what the TugCon universe is preaching. Unregulated, barely taxed capitalism is their ideal, and that does NOT lift "entire societies out of poverty". As every economist worth a damn knows, unregulated capitalism explodes like a diesel engine without a governor.
The funny thing is, the die hard anarcho-capitalists here think capitalism is fragile. But capitalism doesn't whither in the presence of regulation; it thrives. It does so because it is vital and it can harness human motivations to increase wealth for a society, but not without taking its classic problems into account as well.
I responded to another one of your posts, and that response applies equally here. Even purists would probably agree with some amount of regulation. For example, capital markets need oversight. It's basic law enforcement, really. Without regulatory protection from fraud, market participants would have little faith in capital markets. If that were to happen on a large scale, capital aggregation wouldn't exist as we know it today and we'd not have the economy and the plethora of goods and services that we presently enjoy. So there's that level of regulated capitalism.
The problem is one of degree. Serious voices here would engage in a reasonable discussion about the right kinds and degrees of regulation. But they are correct in noting that there has been a tectonic shift in the number of people who sincerely think we ought to junk our capitalist system and revisit hte concept of private property and wealth distribution. I see it on social media and directly from those I know who are in their 20s and early 30s. They are convinced capitalism has run its course and that it's time for a new system. They have no idea the privileged (true "privilege"; not made-up privilege) position from which they make those assertions, and they have even less idea of how life would look and feel for them under the yoke of a different system.
I don't love capitalism for its own sake. I love it because it works at this particular epoch in human history. We haven't come up with anything better. We may, and probably will, evolve from it to something even better; but that will be a long time in coming IMO. Given where we are today, it's still the best system.
People who want to ditch capitalism perceive it as not working for them and unlikely to work for them. Part of that is just youth, but the current 20 and 30 somethings really do face a much tougher road than old goats like me did. People on this board paid less than $1,000 a year in college tuition, for example; I'm one of them. Housing wasn't an unaffordable luxury either. And the youngsters aren't having any kids, which will have long term ramifications and should indicate to us that something has changed.
Capitalism isn't really going away anytime soon, despite the sloganeering. But the rules favoring capital relative to labor have made it very unlikely that the young generation will ever come to have any affection for capitalism absent some course corrections and meaningful improvements to their lives. You know as well as I do that Communism got a toe hold in America during the 1930s. FDR's New Deal was very much intended to save capitalism. I'd like to acknowledge capitalism's shortcomings, and address them, without getting rid of it.
Do you feel that the rising cost of a college education is somehow the fault of capitalism Dazzler?
It's also the fault of both political parties restraining the futures of many young people by insisting they go to college, or else spend their lives in poverty. If people only knew how much union iron workers, glaziers and electricians earned, they'd be shocked.
Absolutely. Our kids NEED to know how capitalism raises entire societies out of poverty better than any other system - AINEC.
Capitalism doesn't raise entire societies out of poverty. Capitalism's biggest fans don't make that argument. Didn't any of you girls take any economics courses?
Anyway, the converse of Black Lives Matter is that they don't.
Then what does?
And, in fact capitalism’s biggest fans, indeed even its intellectual antithesis, say otherwise. Even Marx acknowledged capitalism’s unique ability to reduce and often entirely limit, scarcity.
Interested in your serious response here.
Regulated capitalism with progressive taxation can do it, but that's not what the TugCon universe is preaching. Unregulated, barely taxed capitalism is their ideal, and that does NOT lift "entire societies out of poverty". As every economist worth a damn knows, unregulated capitalism explodes like a diesel engine without a governor.
The funny thing is, the die hard anarcho-capitalists here think capitalism is fragile. But capitalism doesn't whither in the presence of regulation; it thrives. It does so because it is vital and it can harness human motivations to increase wealth for a society, but not without taking its classic problems into account as well.
I responded to another one of your posts, and that response applies equally here. Even purists would probably agree with some amount of regulation. For example, capital markets need oversight. It's basic law enforcement, really. Without regulatory protection from fraud, market participants would have little faith in capital markets. If that were to happen on a large scale, capital aggregation wouldn't exist as we know it today and we'd not have the economy and the plethora of goods and services that we presently enjoy. So there's that level of regulated capitalism.
The problem is one of degree. Serious voices here would engage in a reasonable discussion about the right kinds and degrees of regulation. But they are correct in noting that there has been a tectonic shift in the number of people who sincerely think we ought to junk our capitalist system and revisit hte concept of private property and wealth distribution. I see it on social media and directly from those I know who are in their 20s and early 30s. They are convinced capitalism has run its course and that it's time for a new system. They have no idea the privileged (true "privilege"; not made-up privilege) position from which they make those assertions, and they have even less idea of how life would look and feel for them under the yoke of a different system.
I don't love capitalism for its own sake. I love it because it works at this particular epoch in human history. We haven't come up with anything better. We may, and probably will, evolve from it to something even better; but that will be a long time in coming IMO. Given where we are today, it's still the best system.
People who want to ditch capitalism perceive it as not working for them and unlikely to work for them. Part of that is just youth, but the current 20 and 30 somethings really do face a much tougher road than old goats like me did. People on this board paid less than $1,000 a year in college tuition, for example; I'm one of them. Housing wasn't an unaffordable luxury either. And the youngsters aren't having any kids, which will have long term ramifications and should indicate to us that something has changed.
Capitalism isn't really going away anytime soon, despite the sloganeering. But the rules favoring capital relative to labor have made it very unlikely that the young generation will ever come to have any affection for capitalism absent some course corrections and meaningful improvements to their lives. You know as well as I do that Communism got a toe hold in America during the 1930s. FDR's New Deal was very much intended to save capitalism. I'd like to acknowledge capitalism's shortcomings, and address them, without getting rid of it.
You are using the example of skyrocketing college tuition to illustrate the problems of capitalism? wtf?
Why don't you just pretend that I am so that you can more easily avoid engaging with what I actually said?
Fuck off Dazzler, You talk about how capitalism isn't working for the current 20 and 30 somethings and the example you provide in support of that claim is the rising cost of college tuition. Why are you always such a fucking dishonest hack?
Absolutely. Our kids NEED to know how capitalism raises entire societies out of poverty better than any other system - AINEC.
Capitalism doesn't raise entire societies out of poverty. Capitalism's biggest fans don't make that argument. Didn't any of you girls take any economics courses?
Anyway, the converse of Black Lives Matter is that they don't.
Then what does?
And, in fact capitalism’s biggest fans, indeed even its intellectual antithesis, say otherwise. Even Marx acknowledged capitalism’s unique ability to reduce and often entirely limit, scarcity.
Interested in your serious response here.
Regulated capitalism with progressive taxation can do it, but that's not what the TugCon universe is preaching. Unregulated, barely taxed capitalism is their ideal, and that does NOT lift "entire societies out of poverty". As every economist worth a damn knows, unregulated capitalism explodes like a diesel engine without a governor.
The funny thing is, the die hard anarcho-capitalists here think capitalism is fragile. But capitalism doesn't whither in the presence of regulation; it thrives. It does so because it is vital and it can harness human motivations to increase wealth for a society, but not without taking its classic problems into account as well.
I responded to another one of your posts, and that response applies equally here. Even purists would probably agree with some amount of regulation. For example, capital markets need oversight. It's basic law enforcement, really. Without regulatory protection from fraud, market participants would have little faith in capital markets. If that were to happen on a large scale, capital aggregation wouldn't exist as we know it today and we'd not have the economy and the plethora of goods and services that we presently enjoy. So there's that level of regulated capitalism.
The problem is one of degree. Serious voices here would engage in a reasonable discussion about the right kinds and degrees of regulation. But they are correct in noting that there has been a tectonic shift in the number of people who sincerely think we ought to junk our capitalist system and revisit hte concept of private property and wealth distribution. I see it on social media and directly from those I know who are in their 20s and early 30s. They are convinced capitalism has run its course and that it's time for a new system. They have no idea the privileged (true "privilege"; not made-up privilege) position from which they make those assertions, and they have even less idea of how life would look and feel for them under the yoke of a different system.
I don't love capitalism for its own sake. I love it because it works at this particular epoch in human history. We haven't come up with anything better. We may, and probably will, evolve from it to something even better; but that will be a long time in coming IMO. Given where we are today, it's still the best system.
People who want to ditch capitalism perceive it as not working for them and unlikely to work for them. Part of that is just youth, but the current 20 and 30 somethings really do face a much tougher road than old goats like me did. People on this board paid less than $1,000 a year in college tuition, for example; I'm one of them. Housing wasn't an unaffordable luxury either. And the youngsters aren't having any kids, which will have long term ramifications and should indicate to us that something has changed.
Capitalism isn't really going away anytime soon, despite the sloganeering. But the rules favoring capital relative to labor have made it very unlikely that the young generation will ever come to have any affection for capitalism absent some course corrections and meaningful improvements to their lives. You know as well as I do that Communism got a toe hold in America during the 1930s. FDR's New Deal was very much intended to save capitalism. I'd like to acknowledge capitalism's shortcomings, and address them, without getting rid of it.
You are using the example of skyrocketing college tuition to illustrate the problems of capitalism? wtf?
Why don't you just pretend that I am so that you can more easily avoid engaging with what I actually said?
Fuck off Dazzler, You talk about how capitalism isn't working for the current 20 and 30 somethings and the example you provide in support of that claim is the rising cost of college tuition. Why are you always such a fucking dishonest hack?
I guess you forgot that the capitalists of our era heavily subsidized our education. Of course, that wasn't the only thing I cited, but you don't really want a conversation, blob.
Absolutely. Our kids NEED to know how capitalism raises entire societies out of poverty better than any other system - AINEC.
Capitalism doesn't raise entire societies out of poverty. Capitalism's biggest fans don't make that argument. Didn't any of you girls take any economics courses?
Anyway, the converse of Black Lives Matter is that they don't.
Then what does?
And, in fact capitalism’s biggest fans, indeed even its intellectual antithesis, say otherwise. Even Marx acknowledged capitalism’s unique ability to reduce and often entirely limit, scarcity.
Interested in your serious response here.
Regulated capitalism with progressive taxation can do it, but that's not what the TugCon universe is preaching. Unregulated, barely taxed capitalism is their ideal, and that does NOT lift "entire societies out of poverty". As every economist worth a damn knows, unregulated capitalism explodes like a diesel engine without a governor.
The funny thing is, the die hard anarcho-capitalists here think capitalism is fragile. But capitalism doesn't whither in the presence of regulation; it thrives. It does so because it is vital and it can harness human motivations to increase wealth for a society, but not without taking its classic problems into account as well.
I responded to another one of your posts, and that response applies equally here. Even purists would probably agree with some amount of regulation. For example, capital markets need oversight. It's basic law enforcement, really. Without regulatory protection from fraud, market participants would have little faith in capital markets. If that were to happen on a large scale, capital aggregation wouldn't exist as we know it today and we'd not have the economy and the plethora of goods and services that we presently enjoy. So there's that level of regulated capitalism.
The problem is one of degree. Serious voices here would engage in a reasonable discussion about the right kinds and degrees of regulation. But they are correct in noting that there has been a tectonic shift in the number of people who sincerely think we ought to junk our capitalist system and revisit hte concept of private property and wealth distribution. I see it on social media and directly from those I know who are in their 20s and early 30s. They are convinced capitalism has run its course and that it's time for a new system. They have no idea the privileged (true "privilege"; not made-up privilege) position from which they make those assertions, and they have even less idea of how life would look and feel for them under the yoke of a different system.
I don't love capitalism for its own sake. I love it because it works at this particular epoch in human history. We haven't come up with anything better. We may, and probably will, evolve from it to something even better; but that will be a long time in coming IMO. Given where we are today, it's still the best system.
People who want to ditch capitalism perceive it as not working for them and unlikely to work for them. Part of that is just youth, but the current 20 and 30 somethings really do face a much tougher road than old goats like me did. People on this board paid less than $1,000 a year in college tuition, for example; I'm one of them. Housing wasn't an unaffordable luxury either. And the youngsters aren't having any kids, which will have long term ramifications and should indicate to us that something has changed.
Capitalism isn't really going away anytime soon, despite the sloganeering. But the rules favoring capital relative to labor have made it very unlikely that the young generation will ever come to have any affection for capitalism absent some course corrections and meaningful improvements to their lives. You know as well as I do that Communism got a toe hold in America during the 1930s. FDR's New Deal was very much intended to save capitalism. I'd like to acknowledge capitalism's shortcomings, and address them, without getting rid of it.
You are using the example of skyrocketing college tuition to illustrate the problems of capitalism? wtf?
Why don't you just pretend that I am so that you can more easily avoid engaging with what I actually said?
Fuck off Dazzler, You talk about how capitalism isn't working for the current 20 and 30 somethings and the example you provide in support of that claim is the rising cost of college tuition. Why are you always such a fucking dishonest hack?
I guess you forgot that the capitalists of our era heavily subsidized our education. Of course, that wasn't the only thing I cited, but you don't really want a conversation, blob.
Absolutely. Our kids NEED to know how capitalism raises entire societies out of poverty better than any other system - AINEC.
Capitalism doesn't raise entire societies out of poverty. Capitalism's biggest fans don't make that argument. Didn't any of you girls take any economics courses?
Anyway, the converse of Black Lives Matter is that they don't.
Then what does?
And, in fact capitalism’s biggest fans, indeed even its intellectual antithesis, say otherwise. Even Marx acknowledged capitalism’s unique ability to reduce and often entirely limit, scarcity.
Interested in your serious response here.
Regulated capitalism with progressive taxation can do it, but that's not what the TugCon universe is preaching. Unregulated, barely taxed capitalism is their ideal, and that does NOT lift "entire societies out of poverty". As every economist worth a damn knows, unregulated capitalism explodes like a diesel engine without a governor.
The funny thing is, the die hard anarcho-capitalists here think capitalism is fragile. But capitalism doesn't whither in the presence of regulation; it thrives. It does so because it is vital and it can harness human motivations to increase wealth for a society, but not without taking its classic problems into account as well.
I responded to another one of your posts, and that response applies equally here. Even purists would probably agree with some amount of regulation. For example, capital markets need oversight. It's basic law enforcement, really. Without regulatory protection from fraud, market participants would have little faith in capital markets. If that were to happen on a large scale, capital aggregation wouldn't exist as we know it today and we'd not have the economy and the plethora of goods and services that we presently enjoy. So there's that level of regulated capitalism.
The problem is one of degree. Serious voices here would engage in a reasonable discussion about the right kinds and degrees of regulation. But they are correct in noting that there has been a tectonic shift in the number of people who sincerely think we ought to junk our capitalist system and revisit hte concept of private property and wealth distribution. I see it on social media and directly from those I know who are in their 20s and early 30s. They are convinced capitalism has run its course and that it's time for a new system. They have no idea the privileged (true "privilege"; not made-up privilege) position from which they make those assertions, and they have even less idea of how life would look and feel for them under the yoke of a different system.
I don't love capitalism for its own sake. I love it because it works at this particular epoch in human history. We haven't come up with anything better. We may, and probably will, evolve from it to something even better; but that will be a long time in coming IMO. Given where we are today, it's still the best system.
People who want to ditch capitalism perceive it as not working for them and unlikely to work for them. Part of that is just youth, but the current 20 and 30 somethings really do face a much tougher road than old goats like me did. People on this board paid less than $1,000 a year in college tuition, for example; I'm one of them. Housing wasn't an unaffordable luxury either. And the youngsters aren't having any kids, which will have long term ramifications and should indicate to us that something has changed.
Capitalism isn't really going away anytime soon, despite the sloganeering. But the rules favoring capital relative to labor have made it very unlikely that the young generation will ever come to have any affection for capitalism absent some course corrections and meaningful improvements to their lives. You know as well as I do that Communism got a toe hold in America during the 1930s. FDR's New Deal was very much intended to save capitalism. I'd like to acknowledge capitalism's shortcomings, and address them, without getting rid of it.
You are using the example of skyrocketing college tuition to illustrate the problems of capitalism? wtf?
Why don't you just pretend that I am so that you can more easily avoid engaging with what I actually said?
Fuck off Dazzler, You talk about how capitalism isn't working for the current 20 and 30 somethings and the example you provide in support of that claim is the rising cost of college tuition. Why are you always such a fucking dishonest hack?
I guess you forgot that the capitalists of our era heavily subsidized our education. Of course, that wasn't the only thing I cited, but you don't really want a conversation, blob.
Citation please
It didn't cost less because it was subsidized
Good grief
No, obviously it wasn't subsidized. The UW was making a killing on our $180/quarter.
Absolutely. Our kids NEED to know how capitalism raises entire societies out of poverty better than any other system - AINEC.
Capitalism doesn't raise entire societies out of poverty. Capitalism's biggest fans don't make that argument. Didn't any of you girls take any economics courses?
Anyway, the converse of Black Lives Matter is that they don't.
Not even the Chinese would agree with you.
China is your example of unfettered capitalism?
Good luck with that.
Who said unfettered? The point is that even Communist China can thank countless ventures into capitalism for boosting nearly a billion people into the middle class.
Perhaps you missed the TugCon memo. When they say capitalism, they're talking laissez-faire. Anything less is socialism.
But capitalism is laissez-faire. That is its intellectual essence. Of course we make exceptions and dabble in socialist policy (and of course when we do that it's almost always fraught with inefficiency, but that's another chat). But to support capitalism is to support liberty and freedom for markets to work things out. Regulation is necessary on the margins. Most people acknowledge that. But it's always a question of degree and necessesity. In the end, though, to believe in capitalism is to believe in allowing markets to work as free from external interference as possible.
Public highways built by private labor by the lowest bidder was an efficient regulatory project until the tax revenue was captured by big money, big labor. Now we get expensive trains to nowhere, dangerous public transportation and the outlawing of ride sharing in Cali. Basic traffic rules need to be enforced but now we have the traffic cops being treated as a revenue system with fines and penalties out of synch with reality.
Penalties and court fees are 3 to 4 times the fine amount.
Absolutely. Our kids NEED to know how capitalism raises entire societies out of poverty better than any other system - AINEC.
Capitalism doesn't raise entire societies out of poverty. Capitalism's biggest fans don't make that argument. Didn't any of you girls take any economics courses?
Anyway, the converse of Black Lives Matter is that they don't.
Then what does?
And, in fact capitalism’s biggest fans, indeed even its intellectual antithesis, say otherwise. Even Marx acknowledged capitalism’s unique ability to reduce and often entirely limit, scarcity.
Interested in your serious response here.
Regulated capitalism with progressive taxation can do it, but that's not what the TugCon universe is preaching. Unregulated, barely taxed capitalism is their ideal, and that does NOT lift "entire societies out of poverty". As every economist worth a damn knows, unregulated capitalism explodes like a diesel engine without a governor.
The funny thing is, the die hard anarcho-capitalists here think capitalism is fragile. But capitalism doesn't whither in the presence of regulation; it thrives. It does so because it is vital and it can harness human motivations to increase wealth for a society, but not without taking its classic problems into account as well.
I responded to another one of your posts, and that response applies equally here. Even purists would probably agree with some amount of regulation. For example, capital markets need oversight. It's basic law enforcement, really. Without regulatory protection from fraud, market participants would have little faith in capital markets. If that were to happen on a large scale, capital aggregation wouldn't exist as we know it today and we'd not have the economy and the plethora of goods and services that we presently enjoy. So there's that level of regulated capitalism.
The problem is one of degree. Serious voices here would engage in a reasonable discussion about the right kinds and degrees of regulation. But they are correct in noting that there has been a tectonic shift in the number of people who sincerely think we ought to junk our capitalist system and revisit hte concept of private property and wealth distribution. I see it on social media and directly from those I know who are in their 20s and early 30s. They are convinced capitalism has run its course and that it's time for a new system. They have no idea the privileged (true "privilege"; not made-up privilege) position from which they make those assertions, and they have even less idea of how life would look and feel for them under the yoke of a different system.
I don't love capitalism for its own sake. I love it because it works at this particular epoch in human history. We haven't come up with anything better. We may, and probably will, evolve from it to something even better; but that will be a long time in coming IMO. Given where we are today, it's still the best system.
Poont of clarity, I do actually love freedom for its own sake. Capitalism is basically freedom of commerce.
Despite the Dazzlers desperate attempts at a straw man even I have talked about negative externalities and the role of government in mitigating them.(A term which the dazzler previously didn't know until reading it here).
It was definitely wise to let him open his mouth and prove what a fucking fool he is. Good advice @creepycoug
Please. I was a Kane Hall intellectual before your mothers even made their withdrawal at the sperm bank.
Hahaha yeah, you're a real Montesquieu. It's clear to everyone here.
Comments
Despite the Dazzlers desperate attempts at a straw man even I have talked about negative externalities and the role of government in mitigating them.(A term which the dazzler previously didn't know until reading it here).
It was definitely wise to let him open his mouth and prove what a fucking fool he is. Good advice @creepycoug
Geezus dazzler. We have had an explosion of government regulation of the public schools and housing and you are shocked that they are more expensive? Like phuck you have an MBA. Just look at all that cheap housing in Cuba. For some reason, no one is trying to illegally enter Cuba for free sh*t.
You do a great job of that all by yourself. Daily.
Do you even think before you write, H?
The oldest worked three summers in a row at a restaurant and saved 4k to 5k per summer. The younger one is on a similar track in a different, but popular industry. And their minimum wage is 5 to 6 times what mine was in HS, while housing costs have only tripled or quadrupled at most. I have sat down with both of them and figured out how much further ahead they are already than I was at their age and they'll both land jobs, presumably, earning way more than I did, by comparison, adjusted for inflation, when I got out of school.
You wanna talk college costs? It's morons like you who support the bloated administrative, big government influenced offices of diversity and inclusion, which duplicate offices already on campus, and run the Kafka-esque kangaroo sexual assault departments, officers and fake courts, all on the students tab. You want to control college costs? Eliminate those completely unnecessary administrative departments that big-government loving dependents like yourself need to survive.
It didn't cost less because it was subsidized
Good grief