Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Not a leftist but it doesn't seem you are getting many hits.
Depends on product, competition, etc.
I am sure you are getting at gov guaranteeing college (or housing).
Theoretically....if payment of a good / service is guaranteed, the provider of good / service could charge any price and get paid. But if their are many providers of good / service, guaranteed full payment will increase revenue / profitability, allowing company to charge less.
Take for instance small business loans - if there is a monopoly on providing loans, a company could charge 100% interest and have full repayment. But if there are many providers, default provisions are removed - there's no increase in interest charged due to creditworthiness, and companies can charge lower rates (anything above cost of funding+expenses) and remain profitable.
Not a leftist but it doesn't seem you are getting many hits.
Depends on product, competition, etc.
I am sure you are getting at gov guaranteeing college (or housing).
Theoretically....if payment of a good / service is guaranteed, the provider of good / service could charge any price and get paid. But if their are many providers of good / service, guaranteed full payment will increase revenue / profitability, allowing company to charge less.
Take for instance small business loans - if there is a monopoly on providing loans, a company could charge 100% interest and have full repayment. But if there are many providers, default provisions are removed - there's no increase in interest charged due to creditworthiness, and companies can charge lower rates (anything above cost of funding+expenses) and remain profitable.
I seem to recall you writing a few pretty lefty things on these threads though.
Of course most progressives aren't going to admit to what's contained in the poll--but that part of the exercise is itself a useful result to make a point.
The one you're missing is that compulsory participation in a revenue guarantee to an end provider is not an incentive for the end provider to be mindful of thrift.
I seem to recall you writing a few pretty lefty things on these threads though.
Of course most progressives aren't going to admit to what's contained in the poll--but that part of the exercise is itself a useful result to make a point.
The one you're missing is that compulsory participation in a revenue guarantee to an end provider is not an incentive for the end provider to be mindful of thrift.
If you are getting at federal gov't paying for college, I can't agree more. Awful, terrible idea as it will become a black box of bloated, wasted spending of an epic scale.
If you are getting at federal gov't paying for college, I can't agree more. Awful, terrible idea as it will become a black box of bloated, wasted spending of an epic scale.
That's a paradigm example. Even public land-grant universities are being turned into resorts. Then wage, benefits inflation....
Then they turn on the spigot of what many of its consumers think is easy money to buy into it....
Of course the closest parallel is the students think the credentials are compulsory--and many of the hazed have gone on to make them that way for their successors.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
