No it wasn't members of the Californian assembly immediately moved to counter-act the program, we only had to to this because our budget was in dire straights, it was an emergency programme, you are acting like that this was a straight +E.V. operation, however if it was necessarily a straight +E.V. operation it would have likely been enacted in an environment that was non-emergency, however it wasn't, which shows that the state assembly when it really came down to it acted because it was a hail mary maneuver and that it really came down to needing $$$$$ if anyone remembers how those days felt. And they quickly acted to remove such deficits.
You are pretending that this was a no-brainer certain investment, this is an investment that produced significant gains, but the fact is that there should not exist any no-loss m, positive investments that make money without having some rebounding consequence anywhere else, otherwise this would have already been an investment taken, and because of the "No easy money clause" (E. Thorpe) related to investments and the literature on interest rates(LITERALLY the return on capital) we know that this is false.
You are trying to cite empirical evidence to lend warrant toward the thesis that this little out of state admissions thing was a very good thing with no downside, but as far as I know there are many no-go theorems or prohibition statements on that actually. As if there was that much free money and free wealth to be created from one decision that was an effective positive creation of wealth without any subtractive element on it!
There is simply no way that this decision was just sitting for us to take that provided this much of a net benefit, far above the rate of market returns. As if we are supposed to dignify a statement that acts like that space something operating in real time and space cannot be taken up and filled by the admission of out of state students and that this could not be filled up....... i'm sure your local taco stand doesn't fill up with the late-nite party bus of whomever out of towners comes to order food. We're all able to order right away baby, man, this is great.
You are pretending that this was a no-brainer certain investment, this is an investment that produced significant gains, but the fact is that there should not exist any no-loss m, positive investments that make money without having some rebounding consequence anywhere else, otherwise this would have already been an investment taken, and because of the "No easy money clause" (E. Thorpe) related to investments and the literature on interest rates(LITERALLY the return on capital) we know that this is false.
You are trying to cite empirical evidence to lend warrant toward the thesis that this little out of state admissions thing was a very good thing with no downside, but as far as I know there are many no-go theorems or prohibition statements on that actually. As if there was that much free money and free wealth to be created from one decision that was an effective positive creation of wealth without any subtractive element on it!
There is simply no way that this decision was just sitting for us to take that provided this much of a net benefit, far above the rate of market returns. As if we are supposed to dignify a statement that acts like that space something operating in real time and space cannot be taken up and filled by the admission of out of state students and that this could not be filled up....... i'm sure your local taco stand doesn't fill up with the late-nite party bus of whomever out of towners comes to order food. We're all able to order right away baby, man, this is great.