That assertion makes no sense. In a market economy, almost all prices are unregulated. Yet the prices of TVs, hamburgers, etc., aren't skyrocketing. The lack of regulation is surely not the problem.
That assertion makes no sense. In a market economy, almost all prices are unregulated. Yet the prices of TVs, hamburgers, etc., aren't skyrocketing. The lack of regulation is surely not the problem.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/7/31/17629526/m...
It used to be a Federal Law. That got repealed, but certificate of need laws live on in several states. Still, state wide counts as a central mechanism if you live in that state. Since I'm not American, I don't know how the scam works in other states.
The author should not simply state as an assumption that centralized price controls will fix the issue. There needs to be some kind of support offered. Generally, price controls aren't needed to control prices.
If they were -- and if that approach actually worked in general -- then it is unlikely that we would have seen Perestroika, or the horn of plenty that is the modern market economy.
>no central mechanism to control price increases
Which would be "competition" or "regulation", right?
It seems to me that the underlying problem is a principal-agent one (same as in healthcare): my son may want to go to Harvard or Princeton, but I get to foot the bill. If I point out that in-state public university would be much cheaper and nearly as good an education at undergrad level, I get to become Least Popular Dad...
In any way, those are two totally different things you can't compare
"Hamburgers" and "TVs" are also very different products with different cost structures, different market channels, and different competitive landscapes. But we have no trouble reasoning about how the market deals with prices of both those goods. What makes college different? If you can't answer that, you're just begging the question.