hamiltongs said:
Could you point me to where that was established as a fact?
Poor wording on my part. As with anything in Economics, you can find diverging opinions on almost any aspect of economics from equally qualified sources. My statement is based on the principles of economics from my first year Econ class. Unfortunately, that was 9 years ago, so my memory has failed re:reference. I suspect however, that you will be hard pressed to find a highly regarded economist that advocates personal subsidies in favor of a free market. BTW, I was referring to PERSONAL subsidies, not industry. Second, there are times when temporary subsidies (personal) can be justified economically, but these are the exception, not the rule. University tuition freezes and personal 'no strigs' subsidies are not one of them, IMHO.
hamiltongs said:
A subsidy is best regarded as an investment: a certain sector can be subsidized to meet some non-economic goal (such as how the Canadian defence industry is subsidized to maintain a domestic defence infrastructure) or to spur research & development or support an export industry. Quite often the "cost" of the subsidy is reaped back many times over in tax revenue that would never have been generated if the subsidy hadn't been "spent" - that's what makes it an investment. Less investment means less money.
As long as that's temporary, okey-dokey, but that wasn't the original argument. Permanent subsidies lose thier impact over time. Once a person, or an indusrty, begins to rely on them as part of their salary/revenue, it stops being an investment, and becomes welfare.
hamiltongs said:
I did wonder at that statement, until I came across these stats:
U.K. GDP per capita: USD$29,900
Canadian GDP per capita: USD$31,500
Meaning that Canada isn't a "poor cousin" to Britain.
I don't have the time to verify this info, so I'll concede the point re:UK. BUT, the US has a history of resisting socialist policies, and promoting a free market economy, which was the crux of my point. Is there any reason why you didn't post the US' numbers?
hamiltongs said:
I did wonder at that statement, until I came across these stats:
U.K. GDP per capita: USD$29,900
Canadian GDP per capita: USD$31,500
Meaning that Canada isn't a "poor cousin" to Britain.
Yeah, no socialist policies in the UK. No public health care, heavily subsidized industries, ruling Labour parties and massive social development projects over there. Nosiree-bob.
Ok, I conceded that the UK is not a great example of a superior economic power to Canada. You posted numbers that indicate that it's economy is similar in strength, albeit using only one indicator, to Canada's. Now, you admit that the UK is just as socialist as Canada, with just as many non-essential expenditures. Take the US, I googled it and found that their GDP per capita is $40,100/capita, or aprox 1/3 stronger than Canada/UK. What is one of the biggest differences, economically between those groups? Canada/UK have may government non-essential expenditures, and the US has few. I'd argue that this disparity in GDP is a direct result of those Socialist policies.
hamiltongs said:
It may interest you to learn that the overwhelming majority of universities in the US are government-subsidized.
Fine, but are the students?
hamiltongs said:
I agree that the primary beneficiary of the education (the student) should be expected to shoulder much of the expense
Why not all? Save a scholarship or private grant, why should I pay for someone elses degree? If there is a need for say, engineers, and the Universities can't produce enough of them, the entrance requirements and/or the tuition will drop, allowing more to enter the program. If you're grades are not up to standard, or you are unwilling to obtain a loan, why should I pick up the slack?
hamiltongs said:
but the nation as a whole benefits from an educated workforce and consequently subsidized higher education is a good investment.
Of course Canada benefits from an educated work force, but with or without the 'subsidy', we will produce university graduates.
hamiltongs said:
Now, if it so subsidized that the only recognizable benefit is that graduating students are able to buy houses a couple of years sooner, then money is being wasted.
Then it's being wasted. There is the Canada Student Loan Program (which has it's own problems from an economic standpoint) which is VERY easy to qualify for. Get a loan, get your degree, pay it off. The more you work in the summer, the less you borrow. The better your grades in HS, the more likely a scholarship/private grant is. Not to mention sports scholarships. Why give the money away to students when other means are available? Why freeze university's tuitions, forcing them to deliver an inferior product?