[QUOTE="lo_Pine"][QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

If the government stopped interfering with the market for education, the Law of Demand would ensure that tuition costs would drop, since the demand for education is so high. Ironically, by flooding money into the educarion market, the government is causing the cost of education to increase, because educational institutions have an incentive to increase their prices, because they know the government will simply give more money to students to pay the increased prices.

SpartanMSU

You seem to not know what artificial demand is.

None of this makes sense to me. -Fromage-

[QUOTE="lo_Pine"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

... They destroy competitors by either buying them out or running them out of business.. So no to suggest they create jobs isn't always the case.. Walmart is known for their employee horror stories and for the people who probably work for less.. THOSE are the people who are desperate.. The minimum wage in most places already isn't livable, especially if you have a dependent.. Meaning if your going to work for less, it pretty much signifies your desperate and that is your only option.

sSubZerOo

:| Ah yes because talking about having a "livable" wage means one of being glamorous and comfortable..

[QUOTE="lo_Pine"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]I honestly think it would be better for government to step on the throats of corporations that have been sucking the system dry.. Wallmart is a top offender of this in pretty much ensuring workers get paid less by either cutting hours or rarely ever giving raises.. TO trying to show the workers in how to become eligible for government aid just so they don't have to pay for services like health care.. People like to say that the welfare squatter is the main leech.. I would disagree.. I think it is places like Walmart because of the fact they cost the system so much more while, soaring in sales.. sSubZerOo

... They destroy competitors by either buying them out or running them out of business.. So no to suggest they create jobs isn't always the case.. Walmart is known for their employee horror stories and for the people who probably work for less.. THOSE are the people who are desperate.. The minimum wage in most places already isn't livable, especially if you have a dependent.. Meaning if your going to work for less, it pretty much signifies your desperate and that is your only option.

[QUOTE="lo_Pine"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] LOL...goth. Shows what you know.:lol:LJS9502_basic

Under genre of music. Just to be clear.

I honestly think it would be better for government to step on the throats of corporations that have been sucking the system dry.. Wallmart is a top offender of this in pretty much ensuring workers get paid less by either cutting hours or rarely ever giving raises.. TO trying to show the workers in how to become eligible for government aid just so they don't have to pay for services like health care.. People like to say that the welfare squatter is the main leech.. I would disagree.. I think it is places like Walmart because of the fact they cost the system so much more while, soaring in sales.. sSubZerOo

[QUOTE="lo_Pine"]

The answer to this question really depends on what the corporation in question does with their profits.

Ace6301

 But CEOs do not even make their money from the profits of their business. They make all their money through the stock options they get which has no direct connection to the profits their business makes. As long as businesses are expanding then we can't say that profits aren't being used wisely. Sure, they could expand a little more if CEOs did not pocket some money but not by much.

Also, the owners of the business and the business they operate are treated as separate entities. The salary CEOs make are separate from the profits the business generates as the CEOs salary is included in the bottom line. Not saying shady things don't happen but even if they do, the money they pocket is immaterial.

The answer to this question really depends on what the corporation in question does with their profits.