Do you think America is doomed, or that it hit a bump in it's progression as a nation? - General

[QUOTE=Megafan;37491922]Again, what is this based on?[/QUOTE] In the free market one of the ways we judge if something is "worth it" is by seeing how much effort people will put in to make it happen. The system we chose to distribute society's limited resources distributes them according to how much effort someone is willing to put in to make something happen. [QUOTE=Megafan;37491608]Yet again, needs a citation to substantiate the claim that 'student loans + interest is cheaper than the taxes you would need to pay for university per person'. As for the second part, who are you to say what majors do and don't matter? I go to university to learn and better my mind, not just to prepare for a job.[/QUOTE] You know, part of the reason why medicine is so fucked in America is because insurance discourages people from shopping around, that's why you never see a price at the doctor's office, nobody gives a shit 'cause they have insurance. Competition lowering costs is the basis for the world doing things the way it does. When businesses compete, you win. You should go to university to better your mind and prepare for a job, not either.

[QUOTE=Megafan;37491608]Again stating 'competition lowers cost' as fact, and no one is saying that college should be free, just that it should be guaranteed to everyone.[/quote] Why should it be guaranteed to everyone? Why should someone be able to go get a useless college degree and get drunk at parties for 4 years at other people's expense, especially when there is a good chance that they'll be unemployed after they graduate and will end up just defaulting on the loans? If you wanted a degree in the 1950's for example, you could get a job and pay for it yourself, because the costs were lower since the government had not been too heavily involved at that time in trying to guarantee college educations to everyone. Now that the government has caused college tuition to shoot through the roof by artificially stimulating demand (higher demand puts an upward pressure on prices when supply stays the same), virtually nobody can do that. Just about everyone has to put themselves under a massive financial burden now to get themselves a degree because of what the government has done to the college system. On top of that the degrees aren't even worth what they used to be. Many people coming out of college are getting jobs that don't require a college education right now, only now they're neck deep in debt and have been out of the work force for 4 years. There is now [url="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-22/student-loan-debt-reaches-record-1-trillion-u-s-report-says.html"]1 trillion dollars[/url] in student loan debt in the US, most of which are guaranteed by the US federal government. [quote]Mark Kantrowitz of the website Finaid.org estimates that 85 percent of student loan debt is owed to the federal government, and those loans typically carry lower rates and borrower protections such as income-based repayment maximums.[/quote] [url]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/24/obamas-student-loan-push-guide_n_1450288.html[/url] With the job market so weak, it is quite certain that this mountain of debt will not be paid back, and the taxpayers will have to absorb the damage. Like the stock market bubble in the 90s, the real estate bubble, this will just be another bubble that is going to burst. The government never should have gotten involved with guaranteeing college educations to everyone. It was an incredibly terrible idea. [quote]Another uncited 'competition lowers cost' claim.[/QUOTE] That claim is true, and it's based on supply and demand. It's an indisputable fact of economics that competition between firms will put a downward pressure on prices. You want to lower your costs below your competitor so that more customers are attracted to your business, so you find creative ways to cut your costs. Your competitor wants to do the same thing. Prices will necessarily have to fall as a result, all other variables held the same. College is no exception, the price distortion only comes as a result of government interference, the same way they distorted the market for health care by artificially stimulating demand, and caused prices to skyrocket there, too. Get the government guarantees out of college loans and the demand for college degrees will have to fall to where they should naturally be in the market. When the demand falls, colleges are [i]necessarily[/i] and indisputably going to have to lower their costs to where they should naturally be in the market. They'll have to stop building gyms, campus restaurants and other unnecessary things that have nothing to do with academics. They'll have to lay some people off and cut expenses across the board. [b]Not everyone needs a college education[/b] (personally, I profoundly regret going to college) and the government should not be artificially stimulating the demand.

[QUOTE=Noble;37495384]If you wanted a degree in the 1950's for example, you could get a job and pay for it yourself, because the costs were lower since the government had not been too heavily involved at that time in trying to guarantee college educations to everyone. Now that the government has caused college tuition to shoot through the roof by artificially stimulating demand (higher demand puts an upward pressure on prices when supply stays the same), virtually nobody can do that.[/QUOTE] how exactly does government artificially stimulate demand? It's not the government's fault for people all wanting an education, it's society's fault for making people think college=money. Everyone thinks you MUST get a college degree, or else you'll live in the slums or something. Companies like Collegeboard aren't helping either, their just feeding the hysteria.

[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37496285]how exactly does government artificially stimulate demand? It's not the government's fault for people all wanting an education, it's society's fault for making people think college=money. Everyone thinks you MUST get a college degree, or else you'll live in the slums or something. Companies like Collegeboard aren't helping either, their just feeding the hysteria.[/QUOTE] People simply wanting to go to college isn't [i]demand[/i] in an economic sense, that's just desire - unless they actually have the means to go. Demand requires the buyer to be ready, willing, and [b]able[/b] to buy something. The government is making it possible for people who normally would not be [b]able[/b] to get college loans to get them. In doing so they increase the demand for college degrees, and when demand rises without a corresponding increase in supply, price (in this case college tuition), also rises. How are they making it possible? Like I said as demand increases the price naturally must increase. That is true for student loans just as it is for anything else. The price of getting a loan is the interest rate. Normally the price (interest rate in this case) would rise until it found an equilibrium with the demand. The government is keeping those rates below market levels and encouraging more kids to come piling in for student loans. This would never happen in a market without government interference.

[QUOTE=Noble;37496557]People simply wanting to go to college isn't [i]demand[/i] in an economic sense, that's just desire - unless they actually have the means to go. Demand requires the buyer to be ready, willing, and [b]able[/b] to buy something. The government is making it possible for people who normally would not be [b]able[/b] to get college loans to get them. In doing so they increase the demand for college degrees, and when demand rises without a corresponding increase in supply, price (in this case college tuition), also rises. How are they making it possible? Like I said as demand increases the price naturally must increase. That is true for student loans just as it is for anything else. The price of getting a loan is the interest rate. Normally the price (interest rate in this case) would rise until it found an equilibrium with the demand. The government is keeping those rates below market levels and encouraging more kids to come piling in for student loans. This would never happen in a market without government interference.[/QUOTE] No, desire is demand. If people want something more, the demand will increase. Don't pretend to understand economics if you can't even understand what causes demand to rise. If people's desire to go to college goes up, they will sacrifice other things so they can go. [editline]1st September 2012[/editline] if the government did not step in, companies would still find ways to give loans to kids, because there is demand. When there is a shortage, new companies will step in to fill the void.

[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37497290]No, desire is demand. If people want something more, the demand will increase. Don't pretend to understand economics if you can't even understand what causes demand to rise. If people's desire to go to college goes up, they will sacrifice other things so they can go. [editline]1st September 2012[/editline] if the government did not step in, companies would still find ways to give loans to kids, because there is demand. When there is a shortage, new companies will step in to fill the void.[/QUOTE] No, desire is [i]not[/i] demand. That is factually incorrect. Demand [b]includes[/b] both the desire to buy something [b]and the ability[/b]. If there is no ability to buy, there is no demand, just desire. I can desire my own private jet but I don't have the ability to acquire one. The fact that I merely want it doesn't contribute to the actual, economic demand for that commodity. I would have to have the ability to buy it as well as the desire to buy it for this to be considered demand. I don't understand your argument. People will not be able to sacrifice anything to go to college when the tuition is fucking astronomical. Where are they going to get the money from if they can't get a loan? Do you suppose they acquire 50 grand by cutting back on pop tarts for a few months? They aren't going to college without these loans. Companies would find ways to give loans to students but not at [i]interest rates at unsustainable levels[/i]. They can't make money appear out of thin air like the government can, they [b]necessarily have to[/b] raise interest rates because there is a reduced supply of money to lend. This is fact.

[QUOTE=Noble;37497407]No, desire is [i]not[/i] demand. That is factually incorrect. Demand [b]includes[/b] both the desire to buy something [b]and the ability[/b]. If there is no ability to buy, there is no demand, just desire. I can desire my own private jet but I don't have the ability to acquire one. The fact that I merely want it doesn't contribute to the actual, economic demand for that commodity. I would have to have the ability to buy it as well as the desire to buy it for this to be considered demand. I don't understand your argument. People will not be able to sacrifice anything to go to college when the tuition is fucking astronomical. Where are they going to get the money from if they can't get a loan? Do you suppose they acquire 50 grand by cutting back on pop tarts for a few months? They aren't going to college without these loans. Companies would find ways to give loans to students but not at [i]interest rates at unsustainable levels[/i]. They can't make money appear out of thin air like the government can, they [b]necessarily have to[/b] raise interest rates because there is a reduced supply of money to lend. This is fact.[/QUOTE] Desire pushes the demand curve up and to the right. That will increase the price they are willing to pay. Demand is a curve, representing how much you would be willing to buy at any given price. Demand can increase, while still leaving the quantity demanded (aka bought) at zero, if the price is too high. Learn economics. People who absolutely can not afford will still go without it if their is an increase in demand, but there were many people who could afford it, but chose not to go. As you said, college was affordable in the '50s. Many people still chose not to go, because they didn't think it was worth it. Now everyone wants to go, so they are willing to save up money for years, and then take out a loan if needed, just so they can go. More loans did not cause the problem, demand did. More supply does not increase demand. Your right, they do have to make interest rates that work. But if there is a high demand, entrepreneurs will find a way to harness the market.

[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37497835]Desire pushes the demand curve up and to the right. That will increase the price they are willing to pay. Demand is a curve, representing how much you would be willing to buy at any given price. Demand can increase, while still leaving the quantity demanded (aka bought) at zero, if the price is too high. Learn economics. People who absolutely can not afford will still go without if their is an increase in demand, but there were many people who could afford it, but chose not to go. As you said, college was affordable in the '50s. Many people still chose not to go, because they didn't think it was worth it. Now everyone wants to go, so they are willing to save up money for years, and then take out a loan if needed, just so they can go. More loans did not cause the problem, demand did. More supply does not increase demand. Your right, they do have to make interest rates that work. But if there is a high demand, entrepreneurs will find a way to harness the market.[/QUOTE] Desire doesn't do anything. Please go look up what demand means in an economic context and show me one economist that will say demand does not include the willingness and ability to buy. You may find yourself looking back on what you're saying as absurd It was affordable in the 50s because the government had not yet interfered in that market. People go now in huge numbers because the gov made it possible with loan guarantees that would not exist in a free market

[QUOTE=Noble;37497978]Desire doesn't do anything. Please go look up what demand means in an economic context and show me one economist that will say demand does not include the willingness and ability to buy. You may find yourself looking back on what you're saying as absurd It was affordable in the 50s because the government had not yet interfered in that market. People go now in huge numbers because the gov made it possible with loan guarantees that would not exist in a free market[/QUOTE] I never said demand did not include willingness and ability, I simply said desire was a major factor. Without desire, there is no willingness. When desire (aka willingness) goes up, demand goes up. Obviously not as much as if desire and income went up, but it still goes up. The idea that desire plays no role in the demand curve makes no sense. What you're saying is absurd, not me. Once again, absurdity. If it was affordable in the 50's, why did the government start giving out loans? For the government to start giving out loans, it must have been expensive. [editline]1st September 2012[/editline] [QUOTE]In economics, demand is an economic principle that describes a consumer's [B]desire[/B] and willingness to pay a price for a specific good or service.[/QUOTE] There you go, looked it up. As i said before, learn your economics before pretending to know about it. [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demand_(economics)"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demand_(economics)[/URL]

[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37497835]Desire pushes the demand curve up and to the right.[/QUOTE] Nope. It's weird to see two guys arguing, where one guy (Noble) is wrong, and the right guy (you) is still technically wrong. Think about this in abstract for a second. You wash up on an island full of psychopaths who have their own little economy. A bottle of water is $50, and has remained $50 for the last three years because these psychopaths have very constant thirsts. You have no money and, being a foreigner, nobody wants to hire you. Between your arrival, deathly need for water, and death, you'll have had precisely zero impact on the price of water. This is because you were never technically part of the water market. Demand curves take into consideration desire because they assume economic participation. If you can't pay, you're not a participant.

[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;37499671]Nope. It's weird to see two guys arguing, where one guy (Noble) is wrong, and the right guy (you) is still technically wrong. Think about this in abstract for a second. You wash up on an island full of psychopaths who have their own little economy. A bottle of water is $50, and has remained $50 for the last three years because these psychopaths have very constant thirsts. You have no money and, being a foreigner, nobody wants to hire you. Between your arrival, deathly need for water, and death, you'll have had precisely zero impact on the price of water. This is because you were never technically part of the water market.[/QUOTE] true. But if everyone suddenly wants to go to college, then prices will go up.

[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37499720]But if everyone suddenly wants to go to college, then prices will go up.[/QUOTE] That's still pretty debatable! Have you studied educational marginalization and price vs legislation shifts in developed countries? Because that's a very vague statement and one no economist I know personally would make without a page of qualifiers.

[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;37499844]That's still pretty debatable! Have you studied educational marginalization and price vs legislation shifts in developed countries? Because that's a very vague statement and one no economist I know personally would make without a page of qualifiers.[/QUOTE] no, I have only started to learn about economics. But if everyone in the market wants more, isn't it obvious that demand would go up? [editline]1st September 2012[/editline] And let's go back to your thought experiment, except let's say I had one dollar when I showed up. I'm not that thirsty, so the most I would pay for water is 10 cents. Therefore, the quantity I demand at $50 (the market price) is zero. Now, let's go to day two on the island. I'm very thirsty, so now I'm willing to pay $1 for just one bottle of water. Obviously, my demand has increased significantly. Yesterday, I would have bought no water at the price of $1, and now I will buy one water. At market price, I still demand zero waters though, because the price is too high. Demand can go up without changing the quantity demanded at the market price.

"Progression" is a highly subjective and relative term. "Progress" towards what, what do people want to progress towards? What defines "progression?" Wealth? Well being? Technology? If it's any of these things, to what extent do all of them need to be reached. Everything ever has a climax, and America has probably reached it as far as wealth and political power go. It matters little though, as wealth and political power are fleeting phenomenons. As long as people can be happy, as long as people can be educated and be alive, then any country can be doing well. It may not be that America (or on a broader scale, [I]the world[/I]) are doomed, It may just be that the standards for "progression" need to be rewritten and everybody needs to start "progressing" in a more productive direction that actually intends to reach an ultimate goal.

[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37499938]no, I have only started to learn about economics. But if everyone in the market wants more, isn't it obvious that demand would go up?[/QUOTE] No. I just explained why desire independent of participation doesn't affect demand. This is an absolute thing. Maybe a better example would be prison. People in prison desiring guns has absolutely no effect on the price of guns because they cannot buy guns. No amount of desire changes that. [QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37499938]And let's go back to your thought experiment, except let's say I had one dollar when I showed up. I'm not that thirsty, so the most I would pay for water is 10 cents. Therefore, the quantity I demand at $50 (the market price) is zero. Now, let's go to day two on the island. I'm very thirsty, so now I'm willing to pay $1 for just one bottle of water. Obviously, my demand has increased significantly.[/QUOTE] No. That is not what demand is. Your desire changed, but demand for water is still $50/bottle for [undefined quantity consumed by islanders].

[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;37501334]No. I just explained why desire independent of participation doesn't affect demand. This is an absolute thing. Maybe a better example would be prison. People in prison desiring guns has absolutely no effect on the price of guns because they cannot buy guns. No amount of desire changes that. No. That is not what demand is. Your desire changed, but demand for water is still $50/bottle for [undefined quantity consumed by islanders].[/QUOTE] But individuals can buy college educations. They are market participants. Once, there was a time when very few people went to college, because they didn't see the need. Now everyone wants to go. This means many people who could afford college, but didn't choose to, now are choosing to. Really? You too with not understanding demand? $50/bottle is not demand, it is the market equilibrium quantity. [IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7a/Supply-and-demand.svg[/IMG] Here's an example. D1 and D2 are demand curves, while S is the supply curve. P1 and P2 are the equilibrium prices, while Q1 and Q2 are equilibrium quantities. The curves themselves represent demand, while the points on the curves represent the quantity demanded at any given price. Demand!=quantity demanded, they are different, but related concepts.

[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37498815]I never said demand did not include willingness and ability, I simply said desire was a major factor. Without desire, there is no willingness. [b]When desire (aka willingness) goes up, demand goes up.[/b] Obviously not as much as if desire and income went up, but it still goes up. The idea that desire plays no role in the demand curve makes no sense. What you're saying is absurd, not me.[/quote] No that's not how it works. Demand without the [i]ability[/i] to buy is meaningless. The fact that I would like to purchase my own private helicopter is meaningless if I don't have the means to buy it. That doesn't mean I have contributed to the demand for helicopters just because I want it. Demand includes both the willingness and ability to pay. It is just simply false to claim otherwise. [quote]Once again, absurdity. If it was affordable in the 50's, why did the government start giving out loans? For the government to start giving out loans, it must have been expensive.[/quote] A lot of reasons. One of the places to start looking is the "space race". The government wanted to beat the Russians to space and needed trained, educated people to do it, so they [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_Education_Act"]enacted legislation in 1958[/url] that offered subsidies to educational institutions, and began offering the government-guaranteed student loans. [quote]There you go, looked it up. As i said before, learn your economics before pretending to know about it. [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demand_(economics)"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demand_(economics)[/URL][/QUOTE] Read 3 sentences past that. And this as well: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Demand_(economics)#Wrong_definition[/url] [QUOTE=Xenocidebot;37499671]Nope. It's weird to see two guys arguing, where one guy (Noble) is wrong, and the right guy (you) is still technically wrong. Think about this in abstract for a second. You wash up on an island full of psychopaths who have their own little economy. A bottle of water is $50, and has remained $50 for the last three years because these psychopaths have very constant thirsts. You have no money and, being a foreigner, nobody wants to hire you. Between your arrival, deathly need for water, and death, you'll have had precisely zero impact on the price of water. This is because you were never technically part of the water market. Demand curves take into consideration desire because they assume economic participation. If you can't pay, you're not a participant.[/QUOTE] So how do you conclude that I'm wrong if I've been arguing that very same thing? When I said desire doesn't do anything, I mean that desire, on its own, without the ability to pay, is pretty much meaningless in an economic sense. Yes it's true that desire is a part of demand and I haven't been arguing otherwise. I just said that it's factually incorrect to claim that demand is desire (which is what Kakistocrat exactly said). I can desire a space ship, but my desire doesn't amount to jack shit in an economic context because I don't have the ability to buy it.

[QUOTE=hypno-toad;37501172]"Progression" is a highly subjective and relative term. "Progress" towards what, what do people want to progress towards? What defines "progression?" Wealth? Well being? Technology? If it's any of these things, to what extent do all of them need to be reached. Everything ever has a climax, and America has probably reached it as far as wealth and political power go. It matters little though, as wealth and political power are fleeting phenomenons. As long as people can be happy, as long as people can be educated and be alive, then any country can be doing well. It may not be that America (or on a broader scale, [I]the world[/I]) are doomed, It may just be that the standards for "progression" need to be rewritten and everybody needs to start "progressing" in a more productive direction that actually intends to reach an ultimate goal.[/QUOTE] not sure what you're talking about, but wealth, well being, and technology are definitively progress. And no, America is not at it's climax.

Actually it looks like someone changed the (formerly correct) definition of the page on wikipedia to the (incorrect) current definition within the last few days. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Demand_(economics)&oldid=509244706[/url]

[QUOTE=Noble;37502087]No that's not how it works. Demand without the [i]ability[/i] to buy is meaningless. The fact that I would like to purchase my own private helicopter is meaningless if I don't have the means to buy it. That doesn't mean I have contributed to the demand for helicopters just because I want it. Demand includes both the willingness and ability to pay. It is just simply false to claim otherwise.[/QUOTE] Are you even listening? As I said, demand includes both desire and ability. Read my words. BOTH. Demand represents how much you will buy of a product, given a price. If you desire more, it will bump up demand because you are willing to spend more. The fact you want to buy a helicopter DOES bump up demand, the only question is where along the demand curve. Let's say you only have $10. If helicopters are $10, you will have contributed to the market demand. At anything higher than that (which helicopters always are) you demand a quantity of zero, therefore you do not contribute to market demand. Just because the quantity demanded does not change does not mean demand has not changed. [QUOTE]A lot of reasons. One of the places to start looking is the "space race". The government wanted to beat the Russians to space and needed trained, educated people to do it, so they enacted legislation in 1958 that offered subsidies to educational institutions, and began offering the government-guaranteed student loans.[/QUOTE] point taken, but the market demand has still definitively gone up in recent history. [QUOTE]Read 3 sentences past that. And this as well:[/QUOTE] As I said, demand is BOTH. [QUOTE] I just said that it's factually incorrect to claim that demand is desire (which is what Kakistocrat exactly said).[/QUOTE] No, I said that desire bumps up the demand curve, not that it is demand. [editline]1st September 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Noble;37502167]Actually it looks like someone changed the (formerly correct) definition of the page on wikipedia to the (incorrect) current definition within the last few days. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Demand_(economics)&oldid=509244706[/url][/QUOTE] no, it's the same definition. Demand is represents how much of something you are willing to buy, at any given price. If your desire goes up, than demand goes up, but only at certain points along the curve (ones you can afford). The desire to go to college has gone up significantly in recent past, which is why so many Americans are going to college. I don't see why this is hard to understand.

[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37502203]The fact you want to buy a helicopter DOES bump up demand, the only question is where along the demand curve. Let's say you only have $10. If helicopters are $10, you will have contributed to the market demand. At anything higher than that (which helicopters always are) you demand a quantity of zero, therefore you do not contribute to market demand. Just because the quantity demanded does not change does not mean demand has not changed.[/quote] I wouldn't even be on the demand curve because I don't have the ability to pay. The fact that I want to buy it literally has no effect on the demand curve if I'm not [i]both[/i] willing and able to pay. [quote]No, I said that desire bumps up the demand curve, not that it is demand.[/QUOTE] Here is what you posted.. your exact words. [QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37497290]No, desire is demand. If people want something more, the demand will increase. Don't pretend to understand economics if you can't even understand what causes demand to rise. If people's desire to go to college goes up, they will sacrifice other things so they can go.[/QUOTE] [quote]no, it's the same definition. Demand is represents how much of something you are willing to buy, at any given price. If your desire goes up, than demand goes up, but only at certain points along the curve (ones you can afford). The desire to go to college has gone up significantly in recent past, which is why so many Americans are going to college. I don't see why this is hard to understand.[/QUOTE] It's not the same. Someone removed the "ability to purchase" from the definition within the last few days (notice how it's there in the version I linked), making it factually incorrect.

[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37502075]But individuals can buy college educations.[/QUOTE] They can't if they don't have the money. [QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37502075]They are market participants.[/QUOTE] They aren't if they don't have the money or are victim to any other number of marginalizing factors. You might want to go look up "marginalization" the next time you're in school. [QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37502075]Once, there was a time when very few people went to college, because they didn't see the need. Now everyone wants to go. This means many people who could afford college, but didn't choose to, now are choosing to.[/QUOTE] What relevance is a market participant buying a thing to a discussion on whether non-market participants affect demand? You're really not even sure of what you're trying to say, are you? [QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37502075]Really? You too with not understanding demand?[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37499938]no, I have only started to learn about economics.[/QUOTE] Oh, right, no, you're one of those "I just got here but clearly I know everything" types. [QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37502075]$50/bottle is not demand, it is the market equilibrium quantity.[/QUOTE] $50/bottle/quantity is both demand and in this context equilibrium. I would look at the curve you just posted and find where its hidden Z axis variable of "desire" is. [editline]1st September 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Noble;37502278]Someone removed the "ability to purchase" from the definition within the last few days (notice how it's there in the version I linked), making it factually incorrect.[/QUOTE] It shouldn't need to be there. That's like adding "only for the biologically alive" to a definition of healthcare so children don't think it applies to zombies.

[QUOTE=Noble;37502278]I wouldn't even be on the demand curve because I don't have the ability to pay. The fact that I want to buy it literally has no effect on the demand curve if I'm not [i]both[/i] willing and able to pay. Here is what you posted.. your exact words. It's not the same. Someone removed the "ability to purchase" from the definition within the last few days (notice how it's there in the version I linked), making it factually incorrect.[/QUOTE] Yes, you would be on the demand curve, just for a lower price. A ridiculously low price, but still on the curve. And yes, I did imply in the first sentence that desire is demand, but I explained in the very next sentence what I meant was it will increase demand. And in a way, you could say that it's desire only, if you expand to "desire at a given price", since that implies your demand changes based on price (because you can or cannot pay). From Investopedia: [QUOTE]An economic principle that describes a consumer’s desire and willingness to pay a price for a specific good or service. Holding all other factors constant, the price of a good or service increases as its demand increases and vice versa. Read more: [url]http://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/demand.asp#ixzz25Gl6L1PF[/url][/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;37502344]They can't if they don't have the money. [/QUOTE] We already talked this to death. They can, it isn't impossible, it's difficult, though. Not extraordinarily difficult, just difficult. Marginalization is another issue, I think it's the government's job to make sure the rules of the game are fair. Really, that's its only job, but people find it highly subjective.

[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;37502344]Oh, right, no, you're one of those "I just got here but clearly I know everything" types.[/QUOTE] No, I don't know everything. But when you ignore the dictionary definitions of Demand and Quantity Demanded, I question your knowledge. Unless, those meanings change when I get smarterer like you. [QUOTE]$50/bottle/quantity is both demand and in this context equilibrium. I would look at the curve you just posted and find where its hidden Z axis variable of "desire" is.[/QUOTE] No, demand is different than quantity demanded. And really? I never implied a mystery Z axis. Desire, along with income, are decide what the demand curve looks like. Adding it as an axis makes no sense. [QUOTE]They can't if they don't have the money[/QUOTE] I was talking about the ones who can buy, but choose not too. Seriously, how many times must I say this. [QUOTE]What relevance is a market participant buying a thing to a discussion on whether non-market participants affect demand? You're really not even sure of what you're trying to say, are you?[/QUOTE] How thick are you? I never said non-market participants affect demand. I said, when people decide to buy something they previously wouldn't, it bumps up the Demand curve. Seriously, it's not that hard. [editline]1st September 2012[/editline] In summary: Demand- A curve representing how much of a product a person (or the market as a whole) would buy at any price. Demand shifts when the curve is moved, either because of change in desire or change in income (ability to pay). Quantity Demanded- The amount demanded at any given price. Represented by a point on the demand curve. Equilibrium quantity- The quantity at the intersection of the demand and supply curves. The individual will buy this many of the product. [editline]1st September 2012[/editline] And of course, what we were originally talking about: If people suddenly decide that they want to go to college, instead of going straight into the workforce, they will go to college, assuming they can afford it. This will up the demand for college. Therefore, the recent push to send "All kids to college" and the belief that you can't be succesfull without college, has lead to a massive increase in the demand for college.

[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;37499844]That's still pretty debatable! Have you studied educational marginalization and price vs legislation shifts in developed countries? Because that's a very vague statement and one no economist I know personally would make without a page of qualifiers.[/QUOTE] If college were free there'd be more dropouts, and thus more waste and higher prices. This is not debatable. Scholorships are a great method for subsidizing education because they allow students to compete for an education, resulting in the hardest working and most dedicated students getting it, less dropouts, and subsequently less waste. There isn't any educational marginalization in America, blacks are more likely to be accepted than whites in order to "correct the ratios." If you're talking about marginalization of the lower class, and the argument that it is impossible for people to get ahead, we already talked the hell out of it.

[QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37502597]No, I don't know everything. But when you ignore the dictionary definitions of Demand and Quantity Demanded, I question your knowledge. Unless, those meanings change when I get smarterer like you.[/QUOTE] No one is ignoring anything. You're attempting to be pedantic and failing and it brings into question why you're discussing this subject whatsoever. Desire to purchase a thing is meaningless independent of ability to purchase that thing. People not in a market have no effect on that market. Period. Right now you may as well be citing the Magnus effect because you clearly don't understand what is being defined for you in the first place. [QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37502597]No, demand is different than quantity demanded.[/QUOTE] Correct. It's also the only plot point you have for that hypothetical supply/demand relationship because it's a simple hypothetical situation, so it encompasses the entirety of demand in that context. If you knew what the words you were using meant you wouldn't have said what you just did. It's a bit like saying "That's not a rectangle, it's a square!" [QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37502597]I was talking about the ones who can buy, but choose not too.[/QUOTE] And I am still correcting you for incorrectly stating desire alone has any affect on demand, because you've got the reading comprehension of a third grader. [QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37502597]I never said non-market participants affect demand.[/QUOTE] Yeah, actually, you did. [QUOTE=Noble;37496557]People simply wanting to go to college isn't [i]demand[/i] in an economic sense, that's just desire -[B] unless they actually have the means to go.[/B][/QUOTE] [QUOTE=The Kakistocrat;37497290]No, desire is demand. If people want something more, the demand will increase.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;37503904]No one is ignoring anything. You're attempting to be pedantic and failing and it brings into question why you're discussing this subject whatsoever. Desire to purchase a thing is meaningless independent of ability to purchase that thing. People not in a market have no effect on that market. Period. Right now you may as well be citing the Magnus effect because you clearly don't understand what is being defined for you in the first place. Correct. It's also the only plot point you have for that hypothetical supply/demand relationship because it's a simple hypothetical situation, so it encompasses the entirety of demand in that context. If you knew what the words you were using meant you wouldn't have said what you just did. It's a bit like saying "That's not a rectangle, it's a square!" And I am still correcting you for incorrectly stating desire alone has any affect on demand, because you've got the reading comprehension of a third grader. Yeah, actually, you did.[/QUOTE] speaking of pedantic, this debate has gotten silly. We are arguing about nothing, and getting nowhere. So, let's get back to what started this: If social pressures cause more people to go to college than used to, the demand for college goes up. I think this is pretty straight forward, since it means more buyers are entering the market. Is there any dispute here?

[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;37503904]No one is ignoring anything. You're attempting to be pedantic and failing and it brings into question why you're discussing this subject whatsoever. Desire to purchase a thing is meaningless independent of ability to purchase that thing. People not in a market have no effect on that market. Period. Right now you may as well be citing the Magnus effect because you clearly don't understand what is being defined for you in the first place.[/QUOTE] [img]http://img.sparknotes.com/figures/0/039bab1e6f1ef2a65b5f4c8ddc66073a/beanie.gif[/img] D1 represents demand. D2 represents a shift right (increase) in demand. P1 represents original price level, P2 represents price level with increased demand. Expanded production raises costs. A small community college is simple, at a university there is more people and so you've got to build dorms, hire extra security, hire an entire legal team. Often people expect otherwise but actually greater demand raises cost of individual production. [editline]1st September 2012[/editline] this graph also represents a shift right in demand for beanie babies

[QUOTE=Fenderson;37504477][img]http://img.sparknotes.com/figures/0/039bab1e6f1ef2a65b5f4c8ddc66073a/beanie.gif[/img] D1 represents demand. D2 represents a shift right (increase) in demand.[/QUOTE] We've already gone over this. For some reason, they say desire has nothing to do with demand, even though almost every definition of demand I have seen mentions desire. They also seem to ignore the point that I've said that desire AND ability to pay both affect the demand curve, but it seems that's somehow wrong.