How about "human investments?"

Wanted to make sure both of those posts were on this page of the thread-- I agree with Old Dad that there's not such a thing as "free" tuition in this sense.

But-- I also agree with Dude that it's a societal investment as much as K-12 education is.

Our entire way of life is essentially "free".

Half of our problem is how to allocate the free stuff.

The other half is trying to figure out whether and, if so when, the free stuff is going to run out.

And "investment" in what exactly?

The goal being?????

Oh, there's a lot more to it than that. There's also gathering enough of the free stuff that you can make sure it's not free anymore. Or convincing people to pay for things that they could get for free anyway. It's even better if you can get them to pay for nothing at all.



Monetizing them, natch.

Some may see a play on the word "free" in this conversation.

One definition of FREE refers to things being without cost at point of service.
One definition of FREE refers to people being self-determining, unhindered by law or regulation; having personal liberty.

There may be an ironic balance in that getting more "free" stuff often comes with a tradeoff of being less "free" as an increasing number of life-decisions may be made for a person by an outside entity.

In the case at hand, taxpayers are compelled to provide pre-determined amounts of money to the government, which the government then rations out and redistributes through a variety of programs with various requirements including the providing of private and personal information for the government databases.

There is a fine balance, beyond which a tipping point exists: if given a choice, which form of "free" do you prefer?

Speaking to the article on student loans, "meeting financial need" may be a misnomer. It is difficult to believe that anyone is not aware that a loan actually increases the total amount one must pay. Yet some people react as though they won the lottery when "awarded" a student loan as part of their financial aid package.

It is important to raise awareness that a loan actually increases the total amount one must pay.

I've really enjoyed this thread, it's given me a lot of food for thought and to be honest I'm still not certain where I stand on the issue of use of taxpayer money for education past K-12. There are certainly pros and cons to both sides as Vice Pres. Biden states in the 1st linked articles below. Some interesting reading within the links about how federal grants and aid have caused the price of college to skyrocket.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2...ge_tuition.html

http://duncan.house.gov/government-drives-cost-college-tuition-healthcare

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2...h-college-costs

http://www.learnliberty.org/videos/why-is-higher-education-so-expensive/

http://www.cato.org/publications/policy-...ral-tuition-aid

http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/miarticle.htm?id=9565#.U1gL5FVdVu1

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303296604577454862437127618

http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/education/higher-education-subsidies

Ha! I are find more funner blog! WINNING!!!!

"If something can't go on forever, the old bromide goes, it won't. America's small, private liberal arts colleges can't go on forever. Even now, they are in a long slow decline, like elderly widows in small Southern towns, sitting placidly on their verandas and drinking mint juleps while they wait for the disease that will finally kill them."

http://studentdebtcrisis.blogspot.com/2013/09/private-liberal-arts-colleges-are-dying.html

The banks don't like competing with the government for student loans because they won't offer the same percentage rates, but they're eager to get a bigger share of non-dischargeable debt. From an investor perspective, it would be a better deal than mortgages in the 2000s.

Meanwhile, higher interest rates on student loans would have little influence on tuition rates.

Banks are a little smarter than the government, they tend not to like to loan tens of thousands of dollars in unsecured and uninsured loans by the government which can be wiped out by declaring bankruptcy. The government on the other hand isn't as smart and will lend money to anyone regardless of showing any ability to pay it off or have securities. Banks would have to be idiots to have the same percentage rates as the government for this reason. Banks cannot simply just tax the public more when people fail to pay off their student loans....so yeah, the competition is quite uneven and the rates charged aren't going to be competitive.

Back in the olden days of the 80s when I was a student, the entire point of rates on student loans was that they were low. Back then, interest rates were stratospheric (15%+), and student loan rates were 8%. This is one of those facts that people (err, especially banks) seem to have conveniently forgotten as the loans have become big business.