CNBC 11/9/2011 Republican Debate Thread

[Madison Redskin]

sooo what happened in this debate?

Yeah, except for Perry stumbling and Cain repeating "9-9-9" like Rainman, it was fairly uneventful.

[visionary]

sooo what happened in this debate?

http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/09/politics/gop-debate/index.html

Pretty much what the others said.

Oh and some uneventful stuff about school tuitions and the evils of: regulations, China, public education, and corporate corruption (because of regulation and the government)

[Prosperity]

http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/09/politics/gop-debate/index.html

Pretty much what the others said.

Oh and some uneventful stuff about school tuitions and the evils of: regulations, China, public education, and corporate corruption (because of regulation and the government)

thanks, seems pretty standard

as far as the rest of the thread, here's some fodder

http://www.collegeboard.com/prod_downloads/press/cost06/community_colleges_06.pdf

Community college costs have kept pretty much steady w/ inflation, unlike their 4 year counterparts.

[Hersh]

I was more hopeful that this debate would have some more substance and specifics. I wish the candidates, on a CNBC debate, would have been forced to say which parts of Dodd-Frank were so bad instead of "I'm gonna repeal the entire thing." It was really a pointless debate.

[visionary]

I was more hopeful that this debate would have some more substance and specifics. I wish the candidates, on a CNBC debate, would have been forced to say which parts of Dodd-Frank were so bad instead of "I'm gonna repeal the entire thing." It was really a pointless debate.

Just saying "Dodd" and "Frank" was apparently enough to get the crowd good and frothing at the mouth.

[Hersh]

Just saying "Dodd" and "Frank" was apparently enough to get the crowd good and frothing at the mouth.

I would be wiling to bet that 95% of the general electorate can't name a single provision in that bill.

[twa]

I would be wiling to bet that 95% of the general electorate can't name a single provision in that bill.

Hell most couldn't tell ya the last names of Dodd and Frank

[Madison Redskin]

Hell most couldn't tell ya the last names of Dodd and Frank

:ols:

[visionary]

Oh yeah, I forgot about Cain's 'Princess Nancy' moment...about Pelosi, but he did say later that he probably shouldn't have said that

[Hubbs]

I said the cost of student services have significantly increased and noted that funding has decreased. Was ^ post a serious attempt to rebut the claim that the cost of student services have increased, or just you being sarcastic? I can't tell. Seriously.

The services you cited were IT and mental health. I was focusing on your own examples.

But more to the point, you said the spending on student services has increased. That's not the same as rising costs, because costs are what it takes to pay for the same exact goods and services. I've been saying that colleges and universities have been flooded with money, and your response has been, "But look how much money they've been spending!" To which I say: Um, yeah, that's what happens when you have oodles of money to spend. You... spend it. My sister's friend just started her freshman year at a college that's giving a free iPad and iPhone to every new student. A university in the Southwest—I believe one of the schools in Arizona, which wouldn't be surprising—is advertising underclassman suites that feature perks that are normally reserved for country clubs. I've lost track of the number of university endowments that are counted with the word "billion."

To make an analogy that I hope will eliminate any sense of partisanship, I bet the top 1% have spent more as they've made more. Does that mean that the focus should be on how much they're spending, or that it should be on how much they're making?

In any case, onto supply and demand. You've repeatedly emphasized that demand for college degrees has grown dramatically. I'm not going to dispute that claim. However, blaming federal student loan programs for the increased demand for college education ignores the rather significant fact that, over the past 40 years, the US has shed manufacturing jobs and gained millions of "service" jobs, i.e., jobs that are far more likely to require college degrees. In other words, the demand for college degrees was going to increase rather dramatically between 1970 and today, regardless of what the government did.

Well, first of all, I have to call into question your attribution of cause and effect in this argument. You say that service jobs "require" college degrees. I say that the rise of the American service economy coincided with the ongoing expansion of Americans with college degrees. If more service managers are looking to hire while more Americans are going to college, what do you think is going to happen? How is it surprising that the college grads would, in a general statistical sense, become preferred? What service jobs require is someone who can do the damn job. Last time I checked, flipping burgers is a "service" job. I doubt that the majority of our service jobs actually require a college degree. They merely prefer it, which is natural in a society which is turning a college degree into what a high school degree used to be. I know college grads who I would never hire to do anything for me because they're complete idiots, and I know non-grads who I would hire in a heartbeat. I think this is a case of correlation, not necessarily causation.

Additionally, what about supply? Have the number of college campuses, classrooms, professors, etc. stayed fixed at 1950 levels?

Erm... I don't think this is a point you want to be making. I'm just gonna go off the top of my head here, but I believe supply has increased significantly, and if that's correct, that means that you're going to have to go to even greater lengths to attempt to show that the fact that prices have consistently and dramatically outpaced inflation hasn't been the result of ridiculously artificial demand created by a consistent, decades-long policy of student loans for (almost) everyone.

---------- Post added November-10th-2011 at 01:04 AM ----------

I vote for a new thread. Hubbs, care to start one?

Just saw this now. Since I made the latest "response" post, I'll defer to whatever you want, but as far as my thoughts, I'm happy to move into a new thread.

[Madison Redskin]

The services you cited were IT and mental health. I was focusing on your own examples.

They were illustrative, not exhaustive.

But more to the point, you said the spending on student services has increased. That's not the same as rising costs, because costs are what it takes to pay for the same exact goods and services. I've been saying that colleges and universities have been flooded with money, and your response has been, "But look how much money they've been spending!" To which I say: Um, yeah, that's what happens when you have oodles of money to spend. You... spend it. My sister's friend just started her freshman year at a college that's giving a free iPad and iPhone to every new student. A university in the Southwest—I believe one of the schools in Arizona, which wouldn't be surprising—is advertising underclassman suites that feature perks that are normally reserved for country clubs. I've lost track of the number of university endowments that are counted with the word "billion."

To make an analogy that I hope will eliminate any sense of partisanship, I bet the top 1% have spent more as they've made more. Does that mean that the focus should be on how much they're spending, or that it should be on how much they're making?

In the Cato Institute study I cited on the prior page, the author noted that the marginal cost of production has increased. If you haven't read that study yet, you should. It's pretty interesting and you'll find a few nuggets in there to cite.

Well, first of all, I have to call into question your attribution of cause and effect in this argument. You say that service jobs "require" college degrees. I say that the rise of the American service economy coincided with the ongoing expansion of Americans with college degrees. If more service managers are looking to hire while more Americans are going to college, what do you think is going to happen? How is it surprising that the college grads would, in a general statistical sense, become preferred? Service jobs require someone who can do the damn job. I know college grads who I would never hire to do anything for me because they're complete idiots, and I know non-grads who I would hire in a heartbeat. I think this is a case of correlation, not necessarily causation.

I'm too tired and lazy to try to back up my claim that the rise of the service-based economy drove the demand for college degrees. However, that sounds more plausible than "the reason why demand for college degrees rose was that more people were getting college degrees."

Erm... I don't think this is a point you want to be making. I'm just gonna go off the top of my head here, but I believe supply has increased significantly, and if that's correct, that means that you're going to have to go to even greater lengths to attempt to show that the fact that prices have consistently and dramatically outpaced inflation hasn't been the result of ridiculously artificial demand created by a consistent, decades-long policy of student loans for (almost) everyone.

Excuse that noxious odor that my frontal lobe just emitted. I'm just a tad bit tired.

[visionary]

Here's an interesting review of the debate:

http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/thoughts-cnbc-debate

Another one:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/68047.html

[88Comrade2000]

I saw it or listened to it on replay; as I was doing other things while it was on my TV- though the Rick Perry

Romney- Honestly, why is this guy considered the most electable? Obama and the Democrats will destroy him the moment he has the nomination. His flip flopping alone will doom him. Can't wait to see the Democrats commercials against him.

Perry- His brain freeze on national TV finished his candidacy. He should drop out tomorrow and return what money he has left.

Cain- I thought he did alright but the sex scandal/s still should prevent him from going anywhere.

Gingrich- Probably, the next guy to rise. I would love to him as the nominee because while I think's he's crazy on some things; he would bring a serious discussion on all the important issues of the day. If Obama would actually take him up on his offer of 7- Lincoln-Douglas debates; you can have a real discussion. Thing is, the guy has some much baggage that will override any discussions of the issues. I wonder what else they could dig up on him; seems like we already know all his dirt.

Bachmann- She will hang around until Iowa and then drop out. Probably looking for a cabinet position if the Republicans win.

Huntsman- He may get a second look. He would be far better than Romney.

Santorum- A waste of debate space.

Paul- Well his is consistent but I think he lost some votes with his answer to student aid.

Hopefully, the field thins a little before the next debate. Pawlenty has to be kicking himself. He should've stayed in; he might have had a comeback and be the anti-Romney.

Nothing has led to me change my belief that OBama will be reelected in a close election. It will be similar to Bush's reelection in 2004. I do feel there is an opening, a wide opening for a third party or independent candidate.

[SnyderShrugged]

I just went back to watch the Ron Paul education answer. It made less sense the second time.

IT makes perfect sense. Cheap loans = Higher Costs (because they can)

[@DCGoldPants]

is it me, or is the GOP's best chance of winning the WH going to be voting for one of their least conservative and least tea-party like options?

[twa]

is it me, or is the GOP's best chance of winning the WH going to be voting for one of their least conservative and least tea-party like options?

Well it usually is easier if ya can get the votes....oh wait.

[Larry]

That's the point. Subsidized loans rule the roost. Get rid of them and see what the competition can offer.

What completion can offer is more expensive loans.

If competition could offer cheaper loans, it already would be.

[Larry]

Oh, bull. Most of the audience for these debates is people who are interested in politics, and most of those people wouldn't suddenly lose interest if candidates had more than thirty seconds to explain how to fix a healthcare system for 300 million people. If I'm doing the math right, that's .0000001 seconds per person. Or, we could go with money. The healthcare system is roughly 1/5 of a roughly $15 trillion GDP, so roughly $3 trillion is spent in the sector annually. That's .00000000001 seconds per dollar. But no, people struggling with medical bills couldn't listen to more than a few seconds! They'd probably flip to Dancing with the Stars.

But these are REPUBLICAN debates.

---------- Post added November-10th-2011 at 08:52 AM ----------

Psst... costs go down.

PSST... Because?

---------- Post added November-10th-2011 at 08:59 AM ----------

Who's going? College tuition has skyrocketed over the years. Why? Government subsidies.

Now there, you actually said something that was true. (Must have been an accident.).

Tuition has been skyrocketing because the government subsidies have been being CUT. Year after year after year.

And the costs being shifted to the students.

---------- Post added November-10th-2011 at 09:02 AM ----------

Like I said, subsidized loans RAISE the COST of tuition. (there is a difference between cost and price, although correlated)

What you HAVEN'T done, is to make even a token effort at supporting this claim.

---------- Post added November-10th-2011 at 09:05 AM ----------

Just trying to clarify. So fewer people would go to college because everyone can't get a big fat loan to pay for college?

I think we all agree with that.

Some people simply think that having far less Americans going to colledge is GOOD.

---------- Post added November-10th-2011 at 09:08 AM ----------

Oh, for God's sake. This is supply and demand 101. When everyone can get a big, fat loan to pay for college, what do you expect to happen to tuition? Why do you think tuition has been going up at a much higher rate than inflation for years and years? It's magical?

Just a note from a guy who got a D in Econ 101:

Supply and demand says that reducing demand will cause prices to go down, if the product has a fixed supply

Fixed and marginal custs say that, if the number of students go down, that the cost per student will go UP.

Say that right now, there are 65 students taking Thermo 1.

Cut that number of students to 45.

The classroom still custs the same. The professor still costs the same. The campus buildings and the landscaping and the secretaries and the people who keep the students from parking within a mile of the campus still cost the same.

But that cost now has to be paid by 45 people, instead of 65.

Now, you could save some marginal costs by simply eliminating a class. Say, English Comp currently has 30 instructors teaching 45 students each, and you trim it down to having only 20 instructors teaching 50 each.

But even then, you've reduced some marginal costs, but not the fixed ones.

And, when you get to more specialized classes, you can't even do that. Structure and Properties of Ceramics may only have 25 students in it. But you either have to keep teaching the class, anyway, or else you have to stop offering a degree in materials engineering.

----------

I know that in Republican debates, it's considered sufficient to point t a problem, announce that the government exists, and then say "see?".

But if you want to try to claim that, say,

1). Tuition has been going up.

2). Most colleges have an NPR radio station.

3). Therefore, if we get rid of NPR, tuition will come down.

Then you're going to have to work harder, if you want to convince people who aren't worshipers in the Church of Government Makes Everything Evil Simply By Existing.

---------- Post added November-10th-2011 at 09:36 AM ----------

If prices didn't respond to demand, sure. In other words, in Madison's imaginary world, sure.

As opposed to your world, where, if Ford were to sell half as many cars, then Ford's cost PER CAR, would go DOWN? In fact, it would go down so much that Ford would sell MORE cars?

---------- Post added November-10th-2011 at 09:44 AM ----------

It's very simple. If you can raise prices and still get paid, you raise prices. Sure tuition would drop, the subsidies were created to give the less fortunate a shot. Colleges would have to drop prices in order to keep rates at minimal operating levels. The banks would then be more willing to be more competitive with their rates since the market still exists. Feel free to disagree, but that's what the good Doctor was getting at. I don't see how you can't wrap your mind around the logic, even if you disagree.

Ooh, another post from wishful thinking land.

Right now, (to make up some completely imaginary numbers), we have:

The Feds making student loans at 4%.

Banks making loans at 12%

Now, in The Church of Government is Evil And Corporations Are Good, we have the assertion that, if the banks didn't have to compete against 4% government loans, then their prices would go DOWN. AND that they would not only go down, but that they would be LOWER than 4%.

---------- Post added November-10th-2011 at 09:47 AM ----------

Is it because more are going to college? Perhaps the requirement for that degree shrinks or goes away when the supply thins out.

So now the argument is that America would be a better place, if we had fewer college degrees?

And your reasoning for this is the theory that if fewer people had degrees, then degrees would be LESS valuable?

[Larry]

You mean the things that have happened in the past couple of years?

You're right, it's that dastardly 2009-2011 period that's the real problem.

Or your imaginary belief that support for education hasn't been going down for decades.

Maybe my perspective is skewed because I've lived my life in red states, but I've been seeing it happening all my life.

But feel free to keep making up things that people haven't said, and then showing that hey aren't true.

---------- Post added November-10th-2011 at 09:56 AM ----------

Well health services are subsidized by the government so that makes sense that it would contribute. We are talking 200%. Why hasn't everything gone up 200%?

I know! I know!

It's because the evil government isn't involved in everything else, right?

---------- Post added November-10th-2011 at 09:56 AM ----------

Total U.S. college and university enrollment increased about 48 percent between 1986 and 2006.

Terrible. Something must be done.

---------- Post added November-10th-2011 at 10:02 AM ----------

There's very good evidence that points to the subsidies as being a major contributing factor as to why tuition is so high.

And yet, you haven't ATTEMPTED to post ANY.

Show me the "very good evidence" that says that if we reduced the number of students in college, that the cost PER STUDENT will not only go DOWN, but that it will go down by so much that the same number of students will still attend, anyway.

---------- Post added November-10th-2011 at 10:07 AM ----------

Oh good, we're back to the part where you're advocating for a policy that will make today's $100,000 tuition cost $466,095 in 20 years while today's $100,000 income is $148,594 in 20 years, and then telling me that I'm the one who's not Thinking of The Children. So I think I'll just tell you what I told you

Oh good. We're back to ignoring the questions people ask, ans making up things they didn't say, instead.

---------- Post added November-10th-2011 at 10:09 AM ----------

I am often stunned at how many people in the tailgate avoid "mathematics" like the plague.

Hubbs wins the thread, by a mile

Hubbard "mathematics" is "things are bad, therefore the things I'm completely making up are right".

[GibbsFactor]

Larry, you are completely missing the point, as usual. Take off your blinders and stop viewing this as a black and white issue.

This is a very easy thing to wrap your head around. It was mentioned that you can't get a decent paying job without a college degree. We all seem to think that America has lost it's way with the loss of manufacturing jobs and other blue collar type jobs. Because so many people CAN go to college, the amount of white collar jobs has gone up. Since everyone can get cheap aid from the government, everyone can go to college. No one is arguing that giving people the ability to go to college is a bad thing.

What people are saying, myself included, is that we simply cannot afford to send everyone to college. Just as the price of health care skyrockets when the government pays for all these wheelchairs with really no question asked, just as the housing market blew up by giving everyone loans, college tuition ballooned because the government was paying for it too. If you can't see that correlation than you are what is wrong with this country.

This is very similar to the housing bubble. Many say that the college tuition is, in fact, a bubble. What's caused it? The government paying everybody. Everyone is getting paid. Why do you think the DC area is the richest in the country? The government is paying all of us.

[visionary]

The government paying everybody. Everyone is getting paid. Why do you think the DC area is the richest in the country? The government is paying all of us.

I think I need to ask for a raise from the government then.

Maybe they'll increase it to 0.0000001 dollars then.

[GibbsFactor]

Why did a house I bought in 1995 cost me $200,000 and I sold it for $450,000 in 2005?

Exactly. Great comparison. Tuition has skyrocketed just like the housing market.

[twa]

You can make college more affordable and accessible for those qualified though.

The education delivery system as a whole needs reformed

[Larry]

I'm too tired and lazy to try to back up my claim that the rise of the service-based economy drove the demand for college degrees. However, that sounds more plausible than "the reason why demand for college degrees rose was that more people were getting college degrees.

Actually, I think his argument, that an increased supply of college graduates has led to an increased demand, is certainly plausible, to me.

I've been involved in hiring some people, myself.

Although it was decades age, from the employer's viewpoint, I have one opening, and I have 134 applicants. (And, this was decades ago. The way I hear it, now, it's more like a thousand applications per position).

The first phase of hiring an employee is "how do I reject as many of these applications as possible, quickly?".

Well,if I have, say, an opening for a salesman, and I decide "let's get rid of every applicant who doesn't have a degree", then I can turn a thousand applications into 500, then why shouldn't I? Yeah, there's no RULE that says salesmen HAVE to have a degree. But I've got to reduce this pile SOMEHOW.

[visionary]