dingbat wrote:manofjustice wrote:dingbat wrote:manofjustice wrote: the term "rent-seeking" is put in quotations for a reason, but functionally, it's a proper application, if an unorthodox one.
no, it isn't. Every time I see the incorrect usage it makes me cringe. Do not use well-established technical or academic terms incorrectly. Saying it's a proper application doesn't make it so. It's not unorthodox, it's wrong.
You're just being uncreative. And if I recall correctly, I believe I put the sword through the heart of your opposition to my argument by equating it with the "charge what the market can bear" principle. Now, Dean Mitchell used the same words. But since the market can bear both a higher cost (propelled by students seeking a lifetime of increased earnings) and a lower cost (propelled by out-of-work former associates seeking jobs as law professors), your principle is inferior to mine, which yields a singular market price: the fair value for the services that comprise the education.....
....but enough of that...(probably not)
What if I agree to use a different term? Will you agree to entitlement spending cuts?
big jargon =/= big idea, but feel free to keep using terms you don't really understand and spouting off things that don't make sense (the market can bear both a higher cost and a lower cost - say what?)
"Charge what the market can bear" implies one party getting as much from the other party as that other party will allow.
If law students do the above, the market bears a lower cost. If law professors do the above, the market bears a higher cost. When Dean Mitchell simply says "we will of course charge what the market will bear," implying that doing so yields a) the efficient market price for his education, and also implying b) that the efficient market price for his education is the right price, I, while admitting b), reject a).
a) Why would we suppose that "charging what the market will bear" yields the efficient market price for his education ONLY WHEN the law professors "charge what the market will bear?" b) Further, even if we were to admit that charging what the market will bear only when the law professors do so yields the efficient market price, why would we suppose that such a price so charged is the right price?
Because both students and law professors can "charge what the market will bear," that principle yields two prices--either two efficient prices and at least two "right" prices.
Normally, BOTH SIDES tug at the same time--both sides "charge what the other will bear." But as a factual matter, because we can easily envision law schools charging merely as much as they did 10 years ago--quite a bit less in real dollars--and surviving financially--we detect a market failure. The market failure is explained above as "rent-seeking active investment profit."