The debts of normal individuals are mostly wrapped up in housing, healthcare, and education. So we should be subsidizing those rather than the stock market.
The subsidization, or more specifically the removal of individually driven feedback mechanisms, is what caused the prices of these things to skyrocket in the first place.
The modern university isn’t basically the same as the 1970s university except post Baumol's cost disease. The budget looks dramatically different.
> The modern university isn’t basically the same as the 1970s university except post Baumol's cost disease. The budget looks dramatically different.
Agreed. Look at ratios of professors to non-academic staff.
"The number of non-academic administrative and professional employees at U.S. colleges and universities has more than doubled in the last 25 years, vastly outpacing the growth in the number of students or faculty, according to an analysis of federal figures."
https://hechingerreport.org/ranks-of-nonacademic-staffs-at-c...
> The subsidization, or more specifically the removal of individually driven feedback mechanisms, is what caused the prices of these things to skyrocket in the first place.
No, it's that the subsidy was done through middlemen and rent-seekers instead of direct provision of free healthcare, education, and housing. Giving people earmarked funds is just direct subsidy to the people who control pricing.
The subsidization, or more specifically the removal of individually driven feedback mechanisms, is what caused the prices of these things to skyrocket in the first place.
The modern university isn’t basically the same as the 1970s university except post Baumol's cost disease. The budget looks dramatically different.