lfjmfkekdk

Your post is economically illiterate and no economist in their right mind would claim that school tuition spike is the result of privatization and deregulation. Car loans are privatized too. That didn't drive up the prices for cars because the "predators" control the industry.

In fact, economists show that government backed loans have driven up tuition prices[1]

[1] http://www.nber.org/chapters/c13711.pdf

"As column 4 demonstrates, the demand shocks- which consist mostly of changes in nancial aid-account for the lion's share of the higher tuition. Specifically, with demand shocks alone, equilibrium tuition rises by 102%, almost fully matching the 106% from the benchmark. By contrast, with all factors present except the demand shocks (column 7), net tuition only rises by 16%."

Crack wasn't even targeted in the War on Drug policies until the 80s. The drug was relatively unknown to the general public compared to the other drugs that were targeted. Even Newsweek reported in 1977 that cocaine was safer than cigarettes and liquor "when used discriminately"[1].

[1] http://www.crack-facts.org/historyofcrack.html

The crack epidemic had its origins in the 1970s and became widespread in the 1980s[1]. Crack was finally targeted in 1986 with laws that heavily punished crack dealers. This happened after crack became widespread throughout major American cities.[2]

"The murders and general lawlessness that you reference from the 80s are a direct result of the War on Drugs."

Where were the "murders and general lawlessness" in other countries that had even more expansive Wars on Drugs, like Singapore or Taiwan? America's War on Drugs is relatively mild compared to these countries that sentence drug traffickers to death.

[1] http://www.crack-facts.org/historyofcrack.html [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crack_epidemic#History

"In a hundred years from now people are going to look back at things like the war on drugs as one of the most barbaric, absurd and useless pieces of legislation ever to have been implemented."

How do you explain the rampant crack cocaine drug wars in New York and Miami in the 1980s that killed far more Americans than they do today? You're probably too young to realize how bad New York and Miami were before the war on drugs. How do you explain how Asia has even more "draconian" drug laws than the USA and yet crime is a fraction of ours?

Tumblr was created by a high school dropout so...

You do make a great point. It does baffle me that Obama's daughters would theoretically get special privileges for YC's office hours over, say, an immigrant kid from China whose family earns below the poverty line.

That's not true. There is a scientific consensus on cigarettes and lung cancer. There is certainly no scientific consensus on sugar and diabetes/cancer.

If the first amendment should apply to corporations, should the New York Times be restricted on what articles it can print? What about the movie documentaries you see on Netflix?

Well if you wanted a ban on advertising sugary cereal to kids, you would have to pass the "Central Hudson" test. You would have to prove a compelling government interest to ban the ads to children. The ADA chief medical scientist has already said there is no conclusive proof that sugary food causes diabetes. Also I don't know if you've seen any kids cereal commercials recently, but they're not making deceptive claims (like "eating this cereal will make you healthier").

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/commerc...

Well, not exactly. Tobacco advertising bans, aside from TV and radio, were ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92990&page=1

You can ban it from TV and radio if there's a compelling government interest but even the head medical chied of the ADA says there is no definitive proof that sugar causes diabetes. (See my link above)

There is no conclusive proof that eating too much sugar causes diabetes.

http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/24/five-diabetes-myths...

Well, you may have an increase (no definitive causation) although the chances of developing pancreatic cancer if so is still very unlikely. http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE65E5H420100615

Yeah, was the same like like you as a kid. Was super skinny. Even as an adult, I'm not nearly as active but I do count my calories. IMO, banning things like cereal is not the answer when the more effective approach is to teach kids how to burn their calories and/or limit their calorie intake per day.

That will certainly not pass the first amendment test.

I have a large bowl of cereal every morning. Yes, I eat those kids' sugary cereals. My BMI is below 20.

Forbes 400 lists only Americans. It has nothing to do with Middle East billionaires or foreign government billionaires, who are listed under a different category.

Well, the numbers are similar for millionaires. This is for individuals deemed in the ultra high net worth category, which is $30 million and up....

"Sixty-five percent of the ultra-rich made their own money, while an additional 16 percent inherited a portion of the wealth that they grew to a larger fortune. The self-made rich have an average net worth of $142 million, versus $130 million for those who inherited their money."

http://www.bankrate.com/financing/wealth/myths-about-the-ult...

30% of Forbes 400 billionaires inherited their wealth, 70% did not. What exactly are you using to claim that the super rich derive their wealth from inheritances?