Milton Friedman – Should Higher Education Be Subsidized?

20 thoughts on “Milton Friedman – Should Higher Education Be Subsidized?”

  1. Shit poor arguments on both sides. Full of fallacies and lack of a logical thread. Milton friedman conducts the debate how he wants and these kids are not capable to keep up.
    So much college, so little brain power.
    The problem with university is that it fails in teaching people how to think

  2. Just remember: the Founding Fathers were "subsidized" into power….the wealth of their fathers or wives fathers were all "granted" by the King, usually for fighting the Kings Wars

    Slavery was subsidized

    There has never been a large society that grew out of a Libertarian Core

    Civilization as we've known was born out of Monarchy / Priesthood / Pharoahic / Emperoric…..all began as Unions of Warlords / Chieftains with the purpose to dominate other/further Clan-Unions.

  3. People still arguing in favor of force, coercion, enslavement in the late 20th century… sickening. Dr Friedman was an Economics giant and a true gentleman.

  4. Interesting that the black man in college thinks others of his race, but in worse circumstance than him, should be forced to pay for his privilege. Were he the one on the other end of the IRS gun, working as a mechanic or a barber, would he be so quick to say his income should be taken in order to pay for someone else's privilege?

  5. Government at its core is wasteful and full of bureaucratic rules and regulations that breed incompetence and corruption. Anything that falls under state control is destined to exhibit those same problems. Public education at the elementary level has already proven to be a failure, especially in the inner city democratic strongholds where dropout rates are high, basic academic test scores are low, and graduation rates are low. At the same time, teachers and administration demand higher pay and better benefits and property taxes are consistently increased to keep up. State funded universities are just now beginning to be exposed for their part in this scam, only it is the students that are now stuck with paying back huge loans while working low wage jobs. Students with nonsensical degrees in gender studies, world culture studies, social work, interpretive dance theory etc. are now facing the truth that they do not command top salaries with these credentials and find themselves working as baristas at the local coffee house to pay the bills. In the meantime, professors are being paid six figure salaries to peddle their communist, social justice, and race hating theories in lecture halls to the masses of a captive audience. Going back to his original question, should we subsidize education – my answer is no.

  6. Notice the gentlemen of color is not there to debate, he is there to justify, hence the "debate" takes on a hostile tone. You can clearly see his attitude being shared by almost all students nowadays.

  7. Don’t people have to pass and get accepted into higher education? I don’t understand why the institutions would start letting everyone in if tuition was subsidized.

  8. Nobody made the point I wanted to see him answer, which is, how do we know that the market is the most efficient way of advancing scientific knowledge? Most scientific knowledge comes out of simple intellectual curiosity, and not out of a desire for profit. Eventually, as it accumulates, scientific knowledge is enough to help produce a new innovation or discover something essential about the world that was missing up until then, which helps develop new technologies and better services, (e.g. psychology, economics, sociology, etc.)

    Surely private companies have no interest in subsidizing, say, a guy who is concerned about space and time, after all nobody gains a foreseeable profit from that!! Of course later we had nuclear energy.

    He would contend that how do we know that the state is the most efficient way of advancing scientific knowledge. I would say it isn't, actually. It's the individual scientists and the scientific community as a whole who is the most efficient at that. But of course, private enterprise only cares about profit. Wouldn't it be better if we left scientists to their own devices and let them research whatever they care about and not be concerned about the profit -or lack of it, and only about doing their work properly?

    Scientists need to feed themselves and live well in order to research. It's a complete waste of time for a scientist to spend 8 hours a day NOT researching and doing a pointless job in order to sustain themselves because nobody in the private sector wants to pay them for researching since they don't see the immediate benefit of it! And who knows, the next essential discovery might have been lost because this guy who was clearly smart did not get the time to research it.

    This extends to education. The private sector only cares about profit. But there are fields which are essential to increase our quality of life, not only through technology or some corporate established standard of artistic taste. If all we had was a technocratic education, we'd have only technology but no thinkers! No archaeology or history to satisfy our intellectual curiosity or increase our knowledge about ourselves!! No philosophy to enrich our experience or better our understanding of the universe, society, or the individual. No ethics! Only corporate artists made with the help of shitty focus groups and autotuned and compressed to hell because that is what they think we want! The private sector would never provide us with these people, since all they want is to make money.

    Now of course, government need not decide what is essential for humanity, by imposing degrees or certain fields but just give the people the chance to pursue what they desire, without everything having to be mandated just by financial gain. As simple as giving the individual a choice, which is not exactly far from his ideas.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *