Yeah I wouldn't think you would have in a typical economics curriculum in college. He's an old dead french guy....but pertinent.
Look up Glazier ' s Fallacy
THANK YOU FOR THAT
i do remember this principle from some dark corner of my memory. it is a great take on keynsian theory, even though it evidently is older than him.
regarding the unintended consequences and there abouts the unidentified costs i believe it can apply to farther reaching theorys such as bennets hypothesis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higher_education_bubble
buried in there is the bennett hypothesis, or the belief that by offering gov funding and easier accessibility will drive the costs in aggregate for a service (say university or healthcare). now the standard market forces theory of increased demand can account for some of it, but there is a larger incentive now among schools, loan offices, gov officials, publishers, etc. all have an incentive to pad the curriculum further and get as many people enrolled as possible. but our society is tertiary, one of service more than anything, and so it would make sense for more people to increase their human capital via diplomas/higher ed?
kinda, but our universities are producing (and have been for some time) useless educated workers. i mean, this talk of a living wage is retarded but please dont mind the fact that the barista making 10 bucks an hour owes 40K in student loans for a degree he aint using.
Human capital is a multiplier in the positive when used in a macro sense to measure the impact of higher skill/education on a workforce/population. but if the jobs are not there then the society/individuals do not benefit from higher education, in fact they are made worse off by having a substanial debt levied against them. and for what? a rounded education?
the classes are becoming more diverse but the return on utility is questionable at best. while we are a teritary (service) economy, we still have the vast potential to produce. so why is manufacturing not so rampant here? this could be a long drawn out debate with varrying answers, but the labor force is not the issue (americans are willing to work in industry, the plants KIA and Hyundai put in the southeast are a testament to this) but the rates have to be in line with what the market demands
thats why screwing with the market and trying to force a result is a bad idea. you subisidize higher education with the belief Human capital (H) times (L) labor equals (=) higher output. but they dont account for the higher costs of education and the lack of jobs to be filled. university education is a good thing but not when there is nothing waiting on the other side. trade skill jobs are kicking ass evidently right now, whereas someone with a fancy degree like mine that lets me use big impressive economic jargon dont mean so much in the real world. so thats it, the gov subsidizes college, more people go, costs go up because universities are a racket and demand is higher, people drop out or skirt their student loads, taxpayers eat it either via bad return on loans or the liberal gov forgives it all............so to sum up i believe the whole world to actually runs on kitten farts
*ps* per the costs i suppose they can be identified if you believe in assigning dollar amounts to externalities, but thats a consensus valuation among policy experts more than anything
