/lit/ - Literature

>>17079644
>college textbooks
I remember my prof going off on a rant about this. The industry just makes minute changes to the previous year's edition by either adding or subtracting articles and then bump up the price. Also, they like to sell $100 online homework passes with the new editions so that students are prevented from buying a cheaper used version from last year.

Stop being poor

>>17079677
Just use libgen

society of the spectacle

>>17079697
You couldn't read the second sentence of his post?

Theory of the Leisure Class

>>17079644
Literally everything in that graph that has gotten more expensive involves government intervention in its market.

The things that have gotten cheaper are comparatively open and free.

It's not a coincidence - neoliberalism is the cure, not the disease

>>17079776
>private health care insurance companies will ask hospitals to jack up the costs of basic shit like x rays and checkups so they can sell insurance at high premiums
Is this the power of the free market?

>>17079776
Usury is an even bigger factor than govt intervention, especially when it comes to college tuition and housing. Also the stats in that graph are government made, actual inflation is much higher:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXSX5mD8HwM

>>17079787
Rent seeking. The American healthcare market is incredibly inefficient.
IMO best systems involve a public option paired with market mechanisms to keep prices low. See eg. Singapore

>>17080286

>>17079755
>Theory of the Leisure Class
Never really understood this, isn't conspicuous consumption a good way to get the upper class to part with their wealth and have it flow back to the working class?
t. a brainlet

>>17079776
What a coincidence that the things rising in that graph are things that people need to live (yes, going to college means you get a livable job without being some randian genius, so you do need it to live), and so companies can jack up prices as much as they want and people will still pay for it.

>>17080328
>companies can jack up prices as much as they want
Only because we allow usury.

>>17080356
> Companies jack up life saving drug prices sky high
> Hue hue that’s only because usury is legal!

Fucking libertarians.

>>17080456
Opposing usury is not a libertarian position.

>>17079776
Read Adam Smith. The free market breeds a conspiracy among industry operators against the public. Rent is so high because profits are artificially raised by the actions of private land owners exploiting those looking for a home. Land and housing are literally limited resources which are basic necessities and that production of which cannot be scaled up the way food can.

Also, just look at how politicians always bail out big business immediately, yet are so unwilling to help bail out the average citizen. At this point, the government is just an arm for industry leaders.

>>17080456
>Companies jack up life saving drug prices sky high
It's a shit situation, but you're falling for fake rageporn. The insurance companies pay the cost of the drugs, the premiums increase marginally.

>>17080510
>Gave it away for free to people with no insurance at all
That just means he didn't charge hospitals and the patients themselves had to pay through the nose for services because they don't have insurance

>>17080510
>The insurance companies pay the cost of the drugs, the premiums increase marginally.
Face it, health insurance is a billion dollar profit industry. When business becomes involved, "cures" take a back seat to "treatment". Why cure a customer once when you can treat them for a lifetime. Just pause and think about the incentives and you will realize the profit motive is utterly destructive when it comes to drugs (duh).

>>17080530
Protip: if you ignore your hospital bill, it is quietly written off after several years.

>>17079776
Exactly correct. Ignore the seething commies

>>17080538
>Face it, health insurance is a billion dollar profit industry. When business becomes involved, "cures" take a back seat to "treatment". Why cure a customer once when you can treat them for a lifetime. Just pause and think about the incentives and you will realize the profit motive is utterly destructive when it comes to drugs (duh).
I don't disagree at all.

>>17080328
You also need a car to live and that has fallen significantly.

>>17080550
Wrong:
>>17080337

>>17079776
>neoliberalism is the cure
no

>>17080562
Provide a source for the spreadsheet vs the chart above. Also cellphones are cheaper. Need one of those too for a stable job.

>>17079776
It's because the things in the red category have highly inelastic demand curves and thus the suppliers can get away with a higher price. It's pretty simple. The fuckery health insurance companies engage in is sustained by the fact that their customers have no other option. A freer market would do fuck all. In the case of college tuition and healthcare, I personally believe that the government needs to implement price ceilings at all points along the supply chain, and that said price ceilings would make healthcare and college more affordable without being prohibitive (i.e. there would not be a shortage). With big pharma constantly lobbying the government, this is fucking NEVER going to happen. A "healthcare for all" plan would just redistribute the payment it would not decrease the total payment. We need price ceilings

>>17079644
>>17080547
>>17080538
>Waaah waaah healthcare so expensive
Unironically just die. Every other species on the planet is perishes when it has minor diseases. The sheer level of R&D infrastructure that goes into inventing increasingly complex and decreasingly effective cures to rarer and rarer disease is almost absurd. Death is a normal part of life. Most disease-related morbidity is from things like obesity and its complications or exceptional old age. We can't keep investing huge chunks of money into trying to fix the human condition. Just come to terms with the fact that you're going to die eventually and stop fucking whingeing that the country isn't spending five quintillion dollars to make sure every person can live until the ripe old age of "Hit by a bus" without feeling sad about numbers on a fucking balance sheet.

>>17079776
>neoliberalism is the cure
neoliberalism is a-ok with stifling markets to prevent challenges to the neolib oligarch class, hence making everything that actually improves living conditions for a middle class that could oppose the current order beyond reach. neoliberalism is capitalism eating itself because the established capitalist class actually doesn't like the potential to be replaced inherent in capitalism. see also: insane monetary policy that is supposed to keep the current party going forever but will probably sink the whole in thing in the next ~10 years if we don't get a war first.

>>17080584
Best post in this thread.

>>17080580
No, what we need is collective involvement in price setting for services of inelastic demand. There is an entire panoply of economic problems in this country we could solve if we just fucked private investors in the ass. Consumer and worker representatives should have delegated and legally enforceable positions on the boards of certain industries.

>>17080456
>>17080510
Health insurance and drug patents cause a similar market distortion as usury. I don't know the solution though.

>>17080575
>Also cellphones are cheaper. Need one of those too for a stable job.
You didn't when they were expensive though :^)

>>17079644
The great irony is that industries themselves are catching on to the fact this course is unsustainable and socially unpopular and the big neolib pundits are pissing themselves because they're about to lose money on their dividends

>>17080456
>>17080530
>>17080538
Health insurance and drug patents cause a similar market distortion as usury. I don't know the solution though.

>>17080587
Can you define neoliberalism? I feel like a lot of arguments are caused because it's such a nebulous term. I don't think laissez faire capitalists/libertarians actually want the oligarchs to capture entire markets. That's an inefficient market and defeats the purpose of using free markets in the first place

If libertarians are so great for the rich why don't they get more funding from billionaires? Why are they shut out by the media? Why do the ultra rich support dems and Republicans so much? You would expect the rich to invest in libertarians so they can enact their policies that are so good for them

>>17079644
Shut it down!!!!

>>17080597
I'm not talking about some gay Communist fag thing that would
never work. I'm talking about something that could be implemented fucking TOMORROW if not for lobbying interests. The fact you immediately resorted to "collective decision-making" shows you're not willing to come up with
practical solutions, instead preferring to use the problem as a launch-pad for your daydreams. Wake the fuck up.

>>17080584
>Guys, I'm a sociopath that thinks people should die even from preventable causes
>I'm so fucking edgy, watch out
Yawn

>>17080637
Because the rich (particularly the rich funding their industries, as opposed to philanthropic interests) operate on short time tables. They seek to increase profit share in the short term, and consistently. Libertarians would allow business to dominate in the long term but it would require equally long term business games with uncertain variables. If rich people really did want to take over the world and not just fill their pockets like conspiracy theorists believed, libertarians would be the best funded party on the planet

>>17080632
>Can you define neoliberalism?
the current economic/monetary/fiscal program of the major "atlanticist" institutions and their outposts.
>I don't think laissez faire capitalists/libertarians actually want the oligarchs to capture entire markets
they don't
>That's an inefficient market and defeats the purpose of using free markets in the first place
exactly and we're going to see just how bonkers contradictory the "free" markets of neoliberalism will get in the coming years

>>17080637
Look up the Koch brothers. Also, the neoliberal revolution is a pretty libertarian movement by itself and neoliberalism is now hegemonic in the US and has been supported and funded by the rich ever since it started in the 70s.

>>17080637
>If libertarians are so great for the rich why don't they get more funding from billionaires?
they do though. not for the things in libertarianism that would make life better for common people, but everything else, sure.

>>17080637
Bub the Koch brothers literaly bankrolled the party. They'll be fine with either Neoliberalism or Neoloberalism 2.0(Libertarianism)

>>17080651
>collective decision-making
>not a practical solution
Universal healthcare allows unified bargaining power that lowers prices, this is proven in other European countries that have it. Sign law that says 1/2 of boards of certain high earning companies (who employ many members) are filled with employee advocates, with a reserved objective consumer interest advocate for tie breaking votes. Better for the economy than price controls, as it allows for market fluctuation

>>17080657
>They seek to increase profit share in the short term
Bullshit. They know how to build a business and track long-term goals. There was a clear opportunity in 2016 when the two most unpopular candidates ever ran against each other. To the very least, you would see the elites pushing libertarian ideas instead the socialist ones they are currently supporting.

a monopoly can only exist through government assistance

>>17080690
This. Monopolies will always be undercut in the free market

>>17080678
The long-term goals of business are not the long-term social goals of eventually monopolizes entire swaths of resources that would take decades if not 2-3 generations. Such is the libertarian dream

>>17080575
Here is your source

>>17080664
>>17080670
>muh Koch brothers
Find me a libertarian candidate they have funded directly

>>17080704
Is the middle column 2020 prices in terms of 1952 dollars?

>>17080690
Tell that to AT&T and every company that lobbied for net neutrality scrapped

>>17080337
Part of why houses are more expensive is bc they are bigger and have more standards/features than houses of the past. It doesn't explain the whole picture, but certainly some of it. Same logic applies to cars. Another thing affecting house prices is school zoning. In 1952, schools were segregated by law in a lot of states. Nowadays, schools are segregated by """zoning""", ergo, middle class people paying to avoid black neighborhoods. You can find a regular 3 bed/2 bath house for sub 80k and then a few blocks away, find the equivalent house (built the same time) cost 300k. Why? Bc nobody wants to live around black people, let alone send their kids to a school with a bunch of blacks. Lastly, less and less people live in multi-generational households so housing demand will grow faster than population growth would predict.

Income halving makes sense, women are now expected to work (therefore labor supply ~doubles). Further, the US was the only power not to get destroyed in WW2, so American industry had almost no competition for a while.

College is more expensive bc demand for a college degree increased (+women in the work force) along with the availability of student loans.

Who cares about stamps...and why is fresh bread $2.42 "today"? Fresh baked bread from Walmart is $1.

>>17080714
The inflation column is 1952 prices in terms of 2020 dollars.

>>17080723
>College is more expensive bc demand for a college degree increased (+women in the work force) along with the availability of student loans.
Good point. The government is just hedging safe bets that they will fund the students' tuition via their future earnings and the unis are free to jack up prices because the gov will just increase lending limits, not to mention private means for loans like sallie mae.

>>17080720
Net neutrality exists solely so major internet companies do not have to pay the fees they should for communication infrastructure. Imagine being so fucking dumb that you think net neutrality has any fucking impact on your life.

>>17080723
>Part of why houses are more expensive is bc they are bigger and have more standards/features than houses of the past.
I live in New Zealand. This excuse does not work on me.

>>17080757
Whats Coromandel like?

>>17080757
Sure, I was certainly talking from an American pov. I never looked into houses in NZ, but if I were to wager a guess...are the Chinese buying up property (like they are in Canada and Australia)?

>>17080764
No idea. It's the go-to holiday spot of Aucklanders tho.

>>17080786
>are the Chinese buying up property (like they are in Canada and Australia)?
Yes. But the regions are rising because of Aucklanders fleeing their own house prices, and boomers buying houses to rent out.

>>17080707
Your brain has to be made of blubber if you think a third party has any chance at all to made any change at all in the US of A.

What the Koch brothers did in infuse the Republican Party with libertarian ideology and fund libertarian candidates for the Republican part so that the majority of Republican politicians are basically libertarians. Only since Trump has the Republican Party started to move away from libertarianism.

>>17080844
>Only since Trump has the Republican Party started to move away from libertarianism.
Bullshit. Ron Paul has been railing against neocons for decades. The GOP has been a party that acts like they support smaller government, but then bloats the defense budget. The libertarians in the GOP are few and they are mostly ostracized

>>17080893
You seem to think that there is some ideal version of libertarianism that will be personified by a candidate in the libertarian party or some kook like Ron Paul in the Republican Party that you can worship freely without reservation. But politics doesn’t usually work like that. It’s usually slow buildup policy by policy.

There is a web of libertarian policies championed by most politicians in the Republican Party that your brain might recognize as libertarian: lowing taxes, lowering regulations, guns guns guns, freedom of religion.

Just because there is also a socially conservative wing in the Republican Party that also wants to implement policies they like such as banning abortion, gays, and Muslims doesn’t mean the libertarian wing of the party is non existent.

A lesson you might slowly learn as you grow up is that the world is not black and white. A thing is made up of many things. Different people can work together for different goals.

>>17080653
>Increasing our population infinitely through better healthcare on a planet with finite room could have no negative repercussions whatsoever!
>Obviously brown people will magically learn to have less than two kids forever
>We can just brainwash everyone to fornicate and drop acid for their whole lives and reserve having families for when you're over 40
>We should dump trillions globally into making sure that everyone can have face lifts and cosmetic surgery and never experience any symptoms of aging whatsoever
>And if we run out of room we'll just colonize other planets and fuck space aliens too, just like on Star Trek!
>It's totally great and realistic to live like a 10 year old until I get hit by a bus at 80, and you're edgy for saying I should grow the fuck up.
You have to be 18 to post here.

>>17079685
>>17080584
>>17080690

>>17080961
>You can't make things perfect so why bother making them better?
>Infinite population growth is untenable so the only possible solution is to become heartless towards those in need
>Human minds aren't a resource for problem solving so obviously the more of them there are the worse things are
>Other people are having sex without the intention of having kids and I hate that even though I also hate when they have kids
Raising the health and wealth of a nation lowers the birthrate. Also, try having sex before your rampant pessimism and misanthropy drive you into a downward spiral which ends in either suicide or a murder spree

>>17079677
The professors are in on it. All my professors wrote the text books and changed them around slightly each semester so you couldn't pirate or borrow them. Ironic considering they were all marxists. Fuck academics

>>17079644
God that pic's depressing

>>17081030
>Ironic considering they were all marxists
not if you read into the life of marx, guy got very comfortable with banker elites

>>17081041
Marxism is just the new "philosophers should be kings" for professors.

>>17080936
>lowing taxes, lowering regulations, guns guns guns, freedom of religion.
All of these are broadly supported by conservatives. These ideals happen to overlap with some libertarian ones as well, but they are not core to libertarian ideology. If the Koch brothers and other right wing elites supported libertarians, they would push for ideals unique to libertarians. These would include massive troop withdrawals all over the world, the release of non violent drug offenders and sensible drug laws, reigning in the debt, and auditing the fed. How much are the elites supporting these ideas?

>>17081030
You assume that humans have the capacity to pull back when we reach our carrying capacity and we have already proven that is not the case

>>17081069
>>17081041
>>17079677
Academics are extremely scummy, hierarchical/powertripping, immoral (fabrication), ideological (intellectually dishonest), etc. If you gave them any actual power they'd instantly become abusive and irresponsible.

>>17079776
markets are inherently interventionist at this scale. there is no such thing as you mythical free market. also, the government is literally a public front for corporations.

>>17081091
many first world countries have declining populations. If we spread that trend to all countries then population problem solved. This does not require the current population to be harmed or denied care.

>>17081070
You still are not getting it. The Koch brothers pushed libertarian ideology so well in to the Republican Party, that they have become broadly supported by conservatives. There is nothing in those ideas that are conservative. The fact that you think so is only because the Kochs were so effective.

Of course all the other shit you listed won’t be supported by the rich because they wouldn’t benefit the rich as much.

Again, politics is not black and white. The rich can support libertarian while only strongly supporting ideas that benefit them.

>>17080961
fuck the collective though. I only care about me. I'm not going to sacrifice my self for a society with which I don't even identify.

>>17079644
>>wife and kids? Nah bro fuck that I’m a bachelor for life

Whats this a response to?
Has contemporary media pushed the idea that kids are "uncool"?

libertarians deserve a gulag. hate them as much as fascists

Libertarian economics and philosophy isn't especially favorable to people who want to stay rich with the least amount of effort because they would be forced to compete in the free-market at all times.
They can't rely on government to make regulations that work as a barrier to entry for their competitors. The can't rely on government to put up protectionist policies that would protect their interests (in the name of the nation's interest though they clearly undermine it's citizen's interests). They can't rely on government subsidies to keep them afloat and they can't rely on government bailing them out when they fail. This is how the market should work when it's most optimal.
No corporate welfare, no cronyism, just pure competition.
There is not one neocon who would like to see this though and it's obvious that most of the prices in OPs picture are inflated because of the aforementioned reasons.
Just look at Texas Instruments calculators, they have a monopoly (which is obviously not caused by the free market) and so they're able to jack up their prices with no consequences. The actual solution is freer markets but everyone's fucking retarded so no ones actually going to go with that solution.

>>17081559
If you really believe a monopoly is impossible under Laissez-Faire you're honestly beyond saving. Ownership is ownership

>>17079776
Everything that's gotten cheaper in that graph has been outsourced to pakis and chinks (taking jobs away from your nation's workers) who couldn't care any less about product quality and get paid less than a quarter of what an American would consider a livable wage.

>>17080673
>not a practical solution
Yes, moron. "Collective decision-making" is not a practical solution because faggots like you with a savior complex can't ever come to a unanimous decision. It's always "but this needs to change" and "we need to placate these faggots and these spics and these troons and these blah blah blah". Nothing is ever enough. You have some pathological obsession with being oppressed and fighting "the man". Nothing that is ever conceded to you will ever satiate your narcissistic lust for what you pretend is "justice" and you will be stuck in a state of constant revolution in perpetuity.

>>17080704
>column titled difference
>it's actually the quotient

>>17080584
would have been based if you hadn't harped on about it like a faggot for so long

>>17081041
You sure they are just Marxist and not postmodern neomarxists, Petersonite?

>>17080550
Supply and demand

>>17081188
>guns and religion are only supported by Americans because of the Koch Brothers
These have always been supported by Americans. They are the first and second ammendment.
>lowering taxes
Coolidge lowered the tax rate on the wealthy from 74% to 23%. Were the Koch brothers behind that? Oh this also increase the overall tax revenue and percentage of tax revenue paid by the rich.
Regulations are the only one that could conceivably prove you point because there was not a push to deregulate any thing until the 80s
>Of course all the other shit you listed won’t be supported by the rich because they wouldn’t benefit the rich as much.
Quite literally my point. Libertarian ideals do not support the rich.

>>17081126
Birth rates are declining but energy usage per capita has been increasing.

>>17081587
You seemed to have missed the part where you respond with an argument.

>>17081422
Kid making and minding machines have become unsalvageable with the latest firmware update. But you probably find it cool when kids have to listen to their mum get railed by different druggies every friday night - a new friend to watch you get another high score. Every other moment those kids are taught to hate their real father for not compromising more.

>>17079776
Typical example of American Stockholm syndrome.

>>17079787
This.

>>17079787
Government healthcare doesn't work.

>>17080328
>>17080499
>>17080566
>>17080580
>>17080587
>>17081119
>>17083108
Imbecile leftist retards please fuck off.

>>17083116
100%

>>17079787
Why the fuck would an insurance company want hospitals to charge more? Insurance companies are the only thing in the whole healthcare system that actually try to put downward pressure on costs. The American healthcare system is fucked up, but trying to blame insurance companies for hospitals gouging insurance companies is brainlet af.

>>17082895
>Libertarian ideals do not support the rich.

You're one hell of a retard. Shouldn't surprise me, your ideology comes from a six flag commercial actor.

>>17083120
>mad that he does not get to enjoy free higher education, free healthcare, and fair labour laws

Typical.

>>17083138
It's because insurance is only required to pay 25% of the cost of treatment. Therefore the hospital increases prices to ensure that thr insurance pays for the real cost of treatment. They then write the rest off. Otherwise even more burden would fall onto the public. I did accounting for 6 years at a large hospital.

>>17083120
Wait, everyone you called "imbecile" leftist retards were totally correct in their assessment. You're a silly man with silly thoughts.

>>17079644
>wages increasing faster than housing
Fake graph

>>17083140
Did you not read the string of posts I was responding to? Name me on libertarian politician that is supported by the uber wealthy. Why is the libertarian party not invested in by the rich if it is so good for them?

>>17083193
They are. All of their policy intstitutes are Koch brother founded and funded. Cato, Heritage, all of them. They donate through shell companies and nonprofits, but they bankroll them nonetheless. Now I'm not sure about Jorgensen, she said a nice thing about black people so maybe they anandoned her, idk

>>17083248
A think tank is not a libertarian politician. As discussed before, there are libertarian policies that overlap with conservative ones. Some of these are supported by the uber wealthy, but they do not support ideals that are unique to the libertarian party such as auditing the fed, immediate troop withdrawal from around the world, and the release of non violent drug offenders as well as sensible drug laws. These issues are not really even brought up anywhere.
As for the Koch brothers, they invest in a a lot. I think they had $15 billion worth last year. Some of these investments seem counter intuitive. The Koch brothers invested in a climate change denial group, but they are also owners of Georgia Pacific a logging company that makes a lot of revenue cutting down trees for biomass production that is considered 'green' energy. They know how to diversify and to pick and choose certain goals of different ideological groups for their own means

>>17081041
luckily in STEM, until you get to 4th year where the subjects very specific, you can get any generic textbook on biochemistry/chem/organic chem/physics/etc. and they work just fine.

>>17083315
Buddy, GPs biggest role is as a paper mill. They aren't clearcutting forests for green energy you utter moron. It's for profit, and ass paper. They fund 95% of climate denial because they're huge polluters also invested in oil.

One of them even ran as the Libertarian candidate before. Libertarianism is the elites wet dream. It's Neoliberalism on steroids.

>>17083343
Shove a fucking tree up your ass
https://www.gp.com/news/2019/01/transforming-wood-waste-into-energy-for-our-mills

>>17083388
Yeah, I get that, but your dumb ass said "cutting down trees for biomass" which is fucking stupid, they aren't a power company, they're a paper mill. They simply use the trash left over from their paper production in an economical way. Which is good, but hardly makes them "contradictory" they're saving a buck.

>>17083337
good luck handing in the homework from any generic textbook

>>17083445
I don't recall ever having to hand in homework directly from the text. It was all labs and research papers.

>>17083471
A lot of courses these days, including two of mine as a CS major, require you to buy hundred-dollar codes to access the online textbook and homework system. You're up shit creek if you don't have that, even if you have a book that explains everything just as well, because you can't submit homework.

>>17083595
i guess i should also mention i went to uni 10 years ago so it was a bit different then i guess.

I really hate libertarians the most since they are essentially a cuck ideology. I don’t mind as much rich people and business owners who vote Republican because lower taxes than libertarians, who are usually poor. It’s an ideology that couches itself in muh freedom rhetoric while justifying being economically cucked by rich people.

It's baffling to me how the American(or rather Anglo hemisphere in general) education systems still functions.
Troves of low-end income people get scammed into joining it thinking it will "pay for itself" later on when they make big bucks just to get absolutely hosed when they drop out or find themselves in a environment where they make half as much as they where led to believe.
And yet this broken and artificially bloated college/university system is leading the globe in all things cultural. Barely any part of the academic world is safe from american college influence because it seeps into everything.
Something went horribly wrong. I can only hope recent development will change that to some degree but I'm not positive.

Floyd riots proved TVs are actually free if you're black

>>17083138
There was an US insurance company that paid to have it's clients privatelly treated in Mexico because it was cheaper than to get them treated domestically.

>>17083160
Am I supposed to believe you'd charge less to uninsured pacients?

>>17079644

>>17083754
>Troves of low-end income people get scammed into joining it thinking it will "pay for itself" later on
It's really only americucks that get into massive debt.

>>17083754
College is becoming, or has become, highschool 2.0.

The problem is twofold: people saying you HAVE to go to college and companies requiring degrees more and more, thus devaluing degrees.

>>17083804
But westerners all over are also losing a lot of time unnecessarily. Most people don't come back from college smarter or wiser, contrary to expectation. The comparative advantage of having a diploma falls as more people get diplomas, but not having a diploma is a comparative disadvantage as having a diploma is more common so you have a vicious cycle that eats up time. Jobs that didn't require diplomas before now do, but there it's obvious they aren't actually necessary because they used to be done by people without, and this is because having a diploma takes slightly more inteligence and diligence than not having one and, all other things being equal, the candidate with the diploma has that edge during the hiring phase.

>>17079644
Clothing should not only be more expensive but also more limited.
I'm tired of seeing people dressing like shit, it is literally visual pollution. As if ugly modern buildings weren't enough.

>>17083905
Everyone gets two tunic and one jacket

>>17080318
u misunderstood the concept of conspicuous consumption bro, the point is that part of the upper class gets PAID to "study classics"

>>17083315
the kochs got rich on oil, and ironically enough government contracts. their libertarianism is just them trying to pull up the ladder

>>17083804
europeans might not be going into personal debt but they still have to pay for it out of their taxes

>>17079776
>Literally everything in that graph that has gotten more expensive involves government intervention in its market.
>The things that have gotten cheaper are comparatively open and free.
>It's not a coincidence
Correct

>neoliberalism is the cure, not the disease
Neoliberalism is the ideology driving this. There's a reason you put that neo- in front of it. The term is very ill defined to be honest. It has certainly little to do with any libertarian position.
Neoliberalism is the ideology under which our countries have seen comical legislative inflation, constant increase in relative weight of the state and public spending in the economy, explosion of welfarism, etc.

>>17083116
So long as they didn't "work" for it by cornering the market and monopolizing the industry through shit like mergers and acquisitions.

>>17083193
>what is the CATO institute

>>17083315
>A think tank is not a libertarian politician
You're right, it's a conglomerate of politicians, influencers, corporate executives, people in the education sector, people in the legal sector, etc. A think tank holds far more power and influence socially than a politician.

>>17083754
if you're that fucking poor fafsa basically covers any state school degree, sick of retards who went to overpriced private liberal arts school bitching like it's some conspiracy against them, if i take out a loan to buy a lamborghini instead of just buying a fucking hyundai or whatever, is it a "trick" because i needed to drive to work? or did i just make a stupid financial decision?

>>17084808
so even if you have a problem with facebook buying instagram then the solution is to split them up and give instagram back to the founders who built it, not distribute it to chud neets in some kind of communist handout

>>17084818
Is that the place that came up with the plan for Obamacare or was that some other rightwing think tank?

>>17083778
Yes, they charge dramatically less to the uninsured. A 20 thousand dollar bill may be reduced to 6000 after adjusting for lack of insurance. It's highly dependent on the procedure as sometimes private doctors perform work and bill seperately. Generally though, they will adjust a bill down to the minumum for unisured, particualrly if you ask for an itemizex bill.

Of course, now that I'm looking into this, it doesn't seem to be the case for most hospitals, Im actually seeing that uninsured are charged even more. Maybe it was because the hospital I worked at was Catholic, but they would lower uninsured bills pretty dramatically.

>>17084034
Big companies and rich people will, mostly.

>>17084942
That was the Heritage foundation, also funded heavily by the super rich, has massive influence of public policy making, and infused with libertarian ideology or, as people like to call it, Raeganism.

>>17079776
When basically everyone wants a big private home and to be able to leverage their wealth ad infinitum you're going to get things working like that, etc, etc.
Cheap consumer goods are pretty cool though, no? The crazier thing is the ones who unironically believe middle class American living standards are possible for everyone on the globe. Every African will eventually live in a suburb given enough time lol

>>17082895
Coolidge revisionisms unironically was sponsored by the Koch brothers via the CATO institute, etc. Most accounts of Coolidge weren't that positive back in the day. The guy behind those tax changes was Andrew Mellon and he was the patron saint of the supply siders by the 80s. Those republican surplus policies in the 20s (and trade protectionism) basically was one big cause of the global depression that broke out. Reagan built up deficits anyhow with his tax cuts and avoided that. Obviously why anyone should care about government building up a big hoard of gold is questionable if you drop conservative principles. Libertarian policies do good for anyone with wealth obviously the contentious thing is if it does so for everyone.

>>17079677
Never heard of this homework stuff, explain it to me like I'm 5. I thought Americans pirated textbooks.

>>17079776
ROADS

good god if i were american i would kill myself. hell on earth. i wish nothing more than for it to be destroyed

>>17084034
i'd much rather pay taxes than interest

>>17085404
Some profs have you do homework through some software that costs $100+ usually. It's usually useless to the student and offers nothing but problem sets but you have to get it in order to do the HW. It might make it easier for the prof to grade stuff though because its all in the program, maybe thats why some use it.

>>17085495
are you a brainlet? the national debt has interest, too, which necessitates higher taxes

>>17085404
It usually pertains to language classes, STEM classes, or science classes. Essentially, there is a website these textbook companies make in which students do homework and it gets automatically graded for profs. Tbf, I see the utility in this when there are courses with hundreds of students x 4 per teaching load although it's a huge scam and burden on the student.

I took maximum allowed credits for this semester, total of three courses, and I only bought one course book. The rest I pirated, loaned or just didn't bother reading. Ironically I barely read the one book that I actually bought (which was about the fucking history of gender no less), moral of the story: don´t buy their shit books

>>17085290
>Coolidge revisionisms unironically was sponsored by the Koch brothers via the CATO institute, etc. Most accounts of Coolidge weren't that positive back in the day
No they didn't you lying sack of shit. The data I cited comes from the department of treasury as reported in 1920 and 1929.
>In 1920, when the highest tax rate on the highest incomes was 73 percent, people with incomes of $100,000 or more paid 30 percent of all income tax revenues. After the tax rate on the highest incomes was cut to 24 percent, people in that same income bracket paid 65 percent of all income tax revenues in 1929.76
There is also this fact from the US census bureau
>As for the effects of the Coolidge administration’s policies on working-class people, in President Coolidge’s last four years in the White House, the annual unemployment rate ranged from a high of 4.2 percent to a low of 1.8 percent

>>17085482
cope harder

>>17085981
>In 1920, when the highest tax rate on the highest incomes was 73 percent, people with incomes of $100,000 or more paid 30 percent of all income tax revenues. After the tax rate on the highest incomes was cut to 24 percent, people in that same income bracket paid 65 percent of all income tax revenues in 1929.76

Statistics failure.

How many people earned more than $100K in 1920 compared to 1929? That's the important part.

Probably 0.1% (made up number) of people earner more than $100K in 1920. Around 33% of people do that now. This is due to inflation, more wealth, and other factors.

Since it's highly likely that a lot more people earned >$100K from 1920 to 1929, you comparing 30% of tax revenue to 65% of tax revenue is utterly meaningless. Lies, damned lies, and statistics.

>>17083116
Getting sick of this Marxist pandering

>>17086401
>dude what if I took your well cited statistics and made up a bunch of shit that fit my world view
The sheer amount of cope in this post is unbearable

>>17083654
Not that different nowdays, but I have had some egregious cases.
At one point a 1 week course given by a top guy in the faculty required you to buy a 130 dollar book written by him. We were a small class so we shared pictures of the exercises to spite him.
Still makes me seethe. I hate academics. Most are just spiteful losers that should have been fucked in the ass more.

>>17085981
I think you misunderstood what I said. I meant most intellectuals at the time pooh poohed on Coolidge as being extremely mediocre/boring and pretty much everything after the decade pin pointed policies going back to then for contributing to the global chaos that followed in the 30s. Look at the authors of any biography/history that tries to paint Coolidge in a positive image, they're all going to be affiliated with the Hoover Institute and portray Coolidge as the last great anti-socialist or whatever. The private sector boomed in the 1920s by private banks giving big dollar loans to Europe and the republican government working to block European imports, so those loans would never get paid back, so Americans could keep working to export things.
The idea you could increase government revenue by lowering taxes was revived in the 1980s by "supply side" economists... and of course it didn't work and the public debt exploded but that doesn't matter because it was just an alternative form of Keynesian stimulus in practice for Reagan.
If rich people just get poorer all of a sudden when taxes get high or they hand over money doesn't really matter if you're dealing with a fiat currency because either way their spending less and the government can spend whatever it wants whenever.

>>17086556
Even after I explain it this fucking nigger doesn't understand it. I'll try one last time. Maybe your mushbrain will process it.

Let's say 100 people earn $15K a year, 100 people earn $30K a year. Assume flat tax rate. So, people who earn more than $20K pay 66% of the taxes.

Now inflation happens, 100 people earn $30K a year, 100 people earn $60K a year. Assume flat tax rate. So, people who earn more than $20K pay 100% of the taxes.

Because of inflation, comparing tax revenue percentages based on income bracket cutoff is meaningless.

Hopefully your chimp brain gets it.

>>17080337
>essential shit is harder to get
>unhealthy temporary escapes are cheaper
damn

>>17081587
Nice argument faggot.

>>17086798
>Note: There was so much inflation in January 1920 that if you calculate the average from the end of January 1920 - December 1929 the average for the decade is -0.09% but if you calculate it correctly from the end of December 1919- December 1929 that single month increases the average to 0.38% for the decade.
Yea im sure inflation during that decade made my point invalid.

>>17087020
You can make a similar argument with income inequality too.

Chart here shows drastic rise in income inequality from 1920 to 1929.
https://www.chartbookofeconomicinequality.com/inequality-by-country/usa/

>>17085017
There you go.

I also worked for a Catholic clinic, under a nunnery. Having your org run by people who take vows of poverty makes a noticeable difference.

>>17085045
Corp rate is lower in Europe.

Consumption taxes and lower tax brackets are higher in Europe too. You'll absolutelly pay more in taxes as a working or middle class person in Europe than in the USA, except for a few countries like Luxembourg.

>>17083120
>Adam Smith is now left wing
Righties on suicide watch

>>17079776
>what is reverse causation

maybe the government only intervenes because those are goods the free market can’t fix, and if the government didn’t intervene they would be even more expensive

>>17086412
retard that’s famous conservative sowell

>>17087430
The cost of medication would go down immenselly without government bans on importing foreign drugs.

Insurance cost would go down if government didn't ban competition across state lines, since that creates private monopolies.

Food prices are lower in developed countries that don't have massive farm subsidy programs: see Australia and New Zealand.

Tuition costs rise with government aid. Even private (not price controlled) universities in Europe are usually cheaper than public universities in the US.

Tight zoning regulations and rent controls tend to result in more expensive (and lower quality) housing, as seen in SF.

>>17080510
>The insurance companies pay the cost of the drugs
Where do you think the insurance companies get their money from in the first place?

>>17080541
Lifehack: If you can't pay your bills, then just don't pay them

>>17088270
It’s really funny and sad how the libertarian mind works. When it’s the government paying for something, it’s why should I pay to cure someone else. When it’s the insurance company paying for it, it’s hey the insurance company is paying for it so cost doesn’t matter bro. Fucking idiots.

>>17087449
>conservatives are so worked up they accidentally meme themselves into arguing for labor theory of value