#government

Imagine a bookstore that only accepted 5% of customers. If you want to buy a book, you need to fill out an application showing how well-read you are and how likely you are to use the knowledge from the book to advance your career. Every bookstore implements this system, and they become more popular the more people they turn away. Furthermore, bookstores have no reason to build additional locations even when they are filled to capacity, because they only want the most intelligent, well-read people to buy from them. No top-tier bookstore can deviate from this system, because it would cause their rankings (which are inverse to acceptance rates) to plummet. Many bookstores reinvent the wheel, investing in effectively equivalent resources and then limiting access so that no one but a small few can pay to access it.

This is bad for the bookstore, because they don't make a lot of money and have to charge more to each customer. This is bad for customers, because most of them don't get the chance to read, and when they do, the price is extremely high. In this case, much of the curriculum is an artificially scarce resource, because it could hypothetically be offered to everyone online without raising expenses significantly. Yet all the best authors and best publishers work for bookstores with the lowest acceptance rates, since those have the most money. Only the bookstores with low acceptance rates have money, because they have the best authors and publishers.

This is how college works in the United States. While not everyone can have the prestige that currently comes with attending a top-tier university, it's hypothetically possible for everyone to receive a Harvard-quality education via the internet. So what if every university were forced, by law, to offer certifications (online or in-person) to everyone who applied? (Not for free, of course.) Not everyone must attend in-person classes, but all lectures must be recorded, and everyone must be allowed to get some form of degree. And if a government decree is too much, then universities that don't comply receive a harsh tax penalty.

If universities are given some time to comply, with increasing tax incentives by year, what would happen? With many times more customers and relatively stable expenses, I expect prices would become very low at top universities. Colleges would need to be ranked somehow, but with acceptance rates out the window, this would have to be based on how much students improve over the course of their studies at the university. Students would need to be ranked too, but with everyone allowed to attend any university they want, this would need to be based on performance, or some third-party offering standardized exams.

The point is this: everyone can have access to the top professors and best lectures in the country for much cheaper. The best colleges can collect money from more people and invest in more resources. Instead of 1,000 different colleges giving the same lecture, we'd have about a dozen giving different lectures at a much lower price for each student. And as for ranking colleges and students? The market will find a way as it usually does.

If this is the most efficient way, why hasn't the market forced the top colleges to do this? Prestige, ill-executed non-profit ventures, and so-far ineffective government intervention. Get rid of the obsession with status, and we'll have a more educated populace.

This is a question I've been thinking about recently, but honestly, I don't think there is a right answer. What are your opinions on this?

Do you still find yourself shocked by anything that goes on in the world today?

Why or why not?

Now what is great to you?

Who is great to you?

Which president was greater?

It's exactly as it sounds. I know I tagged #anarchy, but I'm not actually an anarchist. I believe that as long as there is a government system controlling you or people near you, there is no such thing as "freedom." obviously, every human has freedom to do whatever they want, its about punishment. As I'm righting this, I realize that I am sort of wrong with my own opinion, but nonetheless, thoughts?

The origin of poverty stems from the fact that people have incompatible ideologies. There are two types of people in the world. Those that wait and those that don't and those that earn wealth and those that don't. The fractional reserve system was created in 1668 by greedy bankers.

How is the fractional reserve unethical one might ask?  

Originally, the markets of the world had a gold standard and resource value resembled the scarcity of supplies in the markets.

The banks invented money without wealth through the fractional reserve system. That is counterfeit by definition. 

Because credit goes to capital investment and consumer purchases, this means that a finite resource pool is used to initiate a chain of resource transactions for future projects, homes and consumer purchases. Supply is limited though so inflation increases. 

Wealth perpetuates new wealth creation. A finite number of resources can create more resources in the future in a capitalistic environment that places emphasis on the immediate consumer products that people want.

Credit Creation without wealth distributes resources unevenly to many projects that reveal themselves as bad investments in the future.

Keynesian Economics is flawed because it bankrupts people's incomes and money which isn't wealth. These Bankers are greedy and think that they do a service to society when they invest into projects, however, when the economy is booming and everyone has money, the most damage is done because banks keep lowering standards of credit and the economy comes over-heated with employment and activity that is utterly useless. 

A depression or a recession then develops a country and capitalism redirects the mismanagement of resources into projects that immediately satisfy the consumer and not the whims of the robber barons that like counterfeiting money.