[lisper]

I'm approximately a social democrat too, but I'm also a pragmatist. Asking for "free education" is like a child asking for a pony. Education, like everything, costs money, and we can't just wave a magic wand and change that. The only question is who pays for it: the student, or someone else. "Free education" really means education paid for by society at large rather than students. I'm not saying that's a bad idea. It isn't. In fact, it's a really good idea. But I really wish we'd stop calling it something that it's not.

[xmddmx]

"social democrat" - are you sure? the point remains: some services are social goods and should be treated as such, so that "nobody lacks for inability to pay". That's not literally "free" but has the same meaning in practice.

[lisper]

> "social democrat" - are you sure?

Pretty sure, yes. Why do you doubt it?

> some services are social goods and should be treated as such

I'm not disputing that. I'm just taking issue with the marketing strategy. I don't like selling it as "free education" because that's a lie, and I don't like lying because it catches up with you eventually. I think it should be called what it is: government-subsidized education. (I also think it should be means-tested. I see no reason for society to pick up the tab for rich people's kids.)

[ROTMetro]

Should we call all grocery stores 'government subsidized food stores' since American AG receives a huge amount of government subsidies? Gas stations 'government subsidized gas stations' or maybe 'government owned' since a large amount of US oilfields are on US government owned land via leases? Should anything that is government subsidized should have some pejorative prefix added to it or just free education?

[lisper]

Are the grocery stores in your area advertised as “free”? Mine aren’t.

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

Here's what he said.

>"Free education" really means education paid for by society at large rather than students. I'm not saying that's a bad idea. It isn't. In fact, it's a really good idea.

Like, he's no longer allowed to be a social democrat if he understands bsaic economics? Why am I not surprised?

> some services are social goods and should be treated as such,

Perhaps. But how is higher education that? It's true that not as many people as you would like have 4 year degrees, but many do, and those people serve me overpriced coffees while whining about unionization.

Where is the social good in their degrees? Like, even if they had gotten those for free and there was no student debt, how did their degrees help either society at large, or them personally?

It is apparently very easy for this to not be a social good.

[jonhohle]

Something is not free if someone else is forced to pay for it. It’s really easy to be generous with other people’s resources.

[nxx788]

That's not how the language works. We have long ago decided that "free", when used in the context of social services, is correct enough to be understood.

Do you think that definition is bad? If so, maybe you'll catch more nibbles by trying to engage in a dialog?

[jonhohle]

That is incorrect. Social services are “free”, adhering to the legal and traditional definitions in that the entity offering the service is indeed not charging for the service. That is well understood.

It is also understood that the source of funding for institutions which offer free services is taxes, fees, and levies from the general population. Regardless of what MMT proponents imagine, costs will eventually be repaid by resources, labor, or war.

I find it intellectually dishonest to advocate for “free” services without acknowledging how those services are funded. It does seem more of the population is interested in immediate gratification regardless of long term costs (see deficit spending, consumer debt, etc.), but that doesn’t make the cost disappear because it is ignored. It’s no different than suggesting because birds fly, they must not be affected by gravity.

[nxx788]

I think we agree. Your first two paragraphs are the point I was trying to make.

I disagree with your opinion in the third paragraph, but I think we can agree to disagree.

[NoZebra120vClip]

Who is "we"?

I've seen a lot of terms used for social services: subsidized, covered, available by grant, available to those who qualify.

But I don't always see those social services tossing around the word "free".

Sure, sometimes there are "free haircuts for the homeless" or "free medical services for the needy", or "free help to apply for benefits", but generally in the context of entitlements, we're not freely bandying this word around.

[nxx788]

Free public schools, free health care, toll free roads, free housing.

It's not the only way we refer to these things, but it's an accepted one.

[NoZebra120vClip]

Well of course voters accept this vernacular, slang usage! It works great! March into the principal's office, slam your fist down on the desk, and demand your free public schools for your kid. Stagger into the E.R., slam your fist down on the triage nurse's desk, and demand your free health care!

It works great at the ballot box too! "Vote now for your free stuff! Everybody gets more free stuff when they vote for me! Support the bill for free stuff!" Because if you called it "using other people's money", then the Ghost of Margaret Thatcher would arise and invade Puerto Rico.

While you're voting, consider whether you're in that hacker demographic that gets a chuckle out of the meme that says "The Cloud Is Just Someone Else's Computer."

[markdown]

Free police, free firefighters, free roads, etc. It's all free as far as your average layman is concerned.

[nxx788]

I don't think anyone thinks free services don't have costs. Everyone (or nearly everyone) understands they are taxpayer funded. Even to the layman.

[SantalBlush]

It's easy to argue that nothing is truly "free" since tradeoffs always exist--at least to some small degree--but that isn't illuminating or helpful.

We all know what is meant by "free" in this context, and there's no point in acting obtuse about it except to argue in bad faith.

[jonhohle]

I’m really not trying to argue in bad faith. Many conversations about “free” social services ignore real capital and human cost of the proposal as if it doesn’t exist. Why stop at education when basic needs like food, water, and shelter could all be “free”? The cost of residential water in CA, for example, is about an ⅛th of the education budget.

In the case of covered education for foster kids, I’m conflicted. I’m in favor of providing anyone placed in the foster care system resources to offset their hardship. I would support non-profits that showed they could efficiently direct funding to programs to help foster kids go to college. I would wager there is research that shows positive economic and social impact by sending foster kids to college that outweighs the cost and significantly reduces the risk of foster to prison. But that’s my choice and don’t think everyone else should be forced to have the same convictions.

While not perfect, Arizona exposes this somewhat by offering tax credits for contributions to non-profits in certain categories (aid for working poor, tuition assistance, foster/adoption, public schools). I’m still forced to cover the cost of social programs, but minimally I get have some agency in choosing organizations that align with my philosophy in those domains and aren’t kicking back a slice of that money to politicians.

[ClumsyPilot]

> Many conversations about “free” social services ignore real capital and human cost of the proposal

Many compalins ignore the costs of missing these services.

We have 'free' firefighters because entire cities used to burn to the ground. That's very expensive to rebuild.

We have 'free' sanitation becauae The Black Death did more economic damage than both world wars combined.

We have free school education because having a population that can't read and write is economically ruinous. And politically ruinous - illiterate people can vote, join cults, maybe they support the inquisition and burning witches at the stake. We've been thought that.

No-one i ever met believes we should go back to the times where majority couldn't read and write becauae parents could not afford school. Some just believe that education stops at an arbitrary age.

[SantalBlush]

Education is a prime target for government subsidies because, as a market, it yields positive externalities. This means when a person receives an education, the net benefit is felt by society at large. It's a well-established economic principle.

So if we're going to discuss the economic realities of government subsidies, we should go a bit further than "things cost money," because that's obvious and simplistic.

*Edit: Just want to add that the tax debate is indeed worth having. My point is only that the justification for subsidies is grounded in econ principles, not just the whims of the public.

[nxx788]

I'm a leftist, left of democratic socialist and definitely left of social democrat. But can we please not point fingers and question people's motives? If someone says they are X, then we should believe them until there's a preponderance of evidence to the contrary.

[okaram]

Of course! Basically everything is paid by somebody (TANSTAAFL). Nobody thinks that free education is magically free, everybody understands that it's paid by taxes/government/society.

OTOH, it is a much cooler slogan than 'education paid by society at large :)

[lisper]

> Nobody thinks that free education is magically free, everybody understands that it's paid by taxes/government/society.

That is far from clear. There are crazy people on the left just like there are crazy people on the right, and I think some of them really don't understand how the world actually works, and that you really can somehow magically make education "free for everyone".

Even if it's not true, it provides ammunition for the opposition to say that it's true. One way or another, I think using misleading terminology is generally not a net win.

[sudosysgen]

Oh come on. Literally no one believes that teacher salaries are going to pay for themselves.

When leftists say that something like public healthcare would be literally free what they mean is that the net cost compared to the alternative is null or negative, not literally that nothing is being spent.

If you want to give me a link of someone who literally thinks that free college means that no one has to pay anything for the college itself or it's staff, I'm willing to take a look. Otherwise, it's just an argument that the net cost to society is negligible or negative, which is a valid use of the word too.

[lisper]

I don't think they think that no one will pay. I think they don't think about it at all, or they think that government somehow has unlimited resources at its disposal.

[throwawaylinux]

It's actually that "billionaires" will somehow produce a whole lot more things and pay for it all for everybody else, absolving themselves of any further rational thought or moral responsibility to those with less than themselves.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ee8GedvPmBU

[Clubber]

Many young people have no concept of money. It's not their fault, their parents paid for everything and it's not really taught. My first car loan out of college floored me at how much the monthly payment was at 60 months and it was a reasonably priced demo (cheaper than new).

Of course, not many people have the concept of money at the government scale either. What does $75B to Ukraine really mean?

[titzer]

We could call it what it really is, which is an investment in the future of the country.

[krainboltgreene]

> Asking for "free education" is like a child asking for a pony

it's kinda crazy that poorer countries than ours seem to get the pony.