<p>Eagle,</p>
<p>I think I see where our thinking diverges:</p>
<p>“Actually the for profit world does not always increase prices. Usually they work to reduce their costs so they can generate more profit or reduce prices as competition heats up. The simplest example of this is the computer industry. The PC you can buy today for less than $1000 is dramatically better than the one you could buy 10 years ago at the same price.”</p>
<p>Yes, it is true that in SOME markets, prices go down over time, but not all. Healthcare is a good example. Housing is another. Food, energy also come to mind. In fact, it is generally market pressures that drive prices down, not the ability to reduce internal costs. Maybe that’s what you were saying? In the case of higher ed, the entire system has been quite resistant to any effort to reduce costs, as shown by the strong reaction (in the traditional higher ed segment, not the for profit segment) against increased class sizes, recorded lectures, internet learning and so forth. That the cost of higher ed has consistently gone up means nothing to me in and of itself. That consumers are willing to pay the increases DOES tell me something. It tells me that the consumer must still perceive that the cost is worth it, or they would look at alternatives. I am neither condoning nor condemning the price increases. I’m agnostic on this topic. Personally, I don’t like them, as I shell out a good deal of tuition for my D. But, as a consumer, I made a conscious decision to do so, rather than accept much less expensive alternatives. I made the choice willingly. </p>
<p>“Additionally, I did not say regulate. To me that implies price controls. What I did say is monitor and reporting.”</p>
<p>OK. We just have a different view of regulation, I guess. I view monitoring and reporting as a form of regulation.</p>