For starry-eyed freshmen starting their first day, college is surreal. It is usually their first experience in moving out of their comfort zone, exploring the campus and making new friends. The feeling of independence is just too good to be true.

Unfortunately, the optimism is quickly dashed when students begin to purchase required textbooks for their classes. Many college students tragically buy textbooks from the bookstore, while clever ones order them from cheaper third-party sources. Sadly, even on Amazon, textbooks are staggeringly expensive, often ranging from $200-$300.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics indicates that textbook prices have increased more than 15 times since 1970, which is three times the rate of inflation. Clearly, there is an underlying economic cause for such an astounding increase.

In a Jan. 13 opinion article for The Wall Street Journal, Craig Richardson provides two explanations for high textbook prices. The first explanation is simple, yet disappointing: Professors aren’t paying attention to prices.

Professors have zero incentive to care about textbook prices, because that burden is carried by the students. Instead, as Richardson argues, professors enjoy the benefits of lecture notes and exam copies given to them by the publishers.

Some professors decide to worsen the situation by producing their own textbooks that are only available in the bookstore. Such instances are common in required 100-level “foundational” courses. These professors enjoy the benefits, while the students are forced to deal with the costs.

The 300-level and 400-level classes are usually more generous than the 100-level courses. The reasons are clear: smaller class sizes, more advanced topics and greater academic independence. As such, the textbooks are usually cheaper or even optional. Not surprisingly, students begin to learn the material from these upper-level courses.

Richardson’s second explanation is the easy access to financial aid. Rather than paying the costs upfront, students defer the costs in their financial-aid package, planning to repay them in the future. The burden is therefore minimized over the long term.

Consequently, a positive feedback loop arises. Professors can select whatever textbooks they like without having to pay for them. In turn, students defer the costs to reduce the burden. Textbook prices are unchecked and continue to rise rapidly.

Wary that there may be additional factors behind high textbook prices, I forwarded Richardson’s article to a friend majoring in economics. To my dismay, he pinpointed a commonly used resource: secondary markets.

The students’ demand for textbooks is inelastic, as they are required by their course syllabi to purchase them. Buying from the bookstore is generally avoided due to their exorbitant prices. As such, the best option is to look for cheaper alternatives elsewhere.

Amazon is one of the most commonly used resources to find cheaper textbooks. Students may also prefer to look for other third-party companies, rent textbooks, reserve books in the library, order e-books, or even download them illegally. High textbook prices therefore initiate the growth of secondary markets.

Aware of the secondary markets, publishers and textbook authors fight back. Their cunning approach is to prosecute the secondary markets for the loss of profits. Fortunately, from The Economist article mentioned previously, a 2013 Supreme Court decision strengthened the idea that Americans can buy and resell copyrighted material acquired legally, even if it is obtained from abroad where prices might be cheaper.

Effectively disarmed legally, publishers are compelled to increase textbook prices to redeem profits lost to the secondary markets. Textbook authors respond by producing newer textbook editions with only minor changes. Some professors are kind enough to tolerate older and cheaper editions; others, not so much.

Are secondary markets really causing high textbook prices? After all, students resort to them because of high textbook prices. If anything, secondary markets amplify the price increase, while the driving causes are delineated by Richardson’s explanation.

Even more alarming, some professors in introductory courses reap monetary rewards from publishers by utilizing a common tactic: online homework. This approach is very beneficial for professors since they aren’t overwhelmed to grade hundreds of homework assignments.

Yet, there’s a caveat. For students to access online homework, they must register for an account on the publishers’ website, which, in turn, requires an access code. How do you obtain an access code? By purchasing the newest edition of the textbook, which is also the most expensive.

So what can we do about high textbook prices? For students, the best possible option is to utilize the secondary markets to obtain the cheapest alternative. The decision between buying and renting requires careful cost-benefit analysis, a skill critical for long-term success.

Professors can help alleviate the price burden by selecting books that best supplement their lecture material, not necessarily those with the highest quality. They should also be willing to tolerate older editions of textbooks, unless substantial changes were made.

As such, students can benefit from learning and enjoying the material without having to worry about the added costs to their ever-increasing tuition.

Badri Karthikeyan is a senior biology major at Drexel University. He can be contacted at op-ed@thetriangle.org.

The post Students struggle with costly textbooks appeared first on The Triangle.

When I was in sixth grade, I heard my peers and teachers actively discussing about the 2004 U.S. presidential election. Of course, I was naive about politics and didn’t have much to add, but I was still interested to learn about the presidential candidates.

Sadly, I was also exposed to negative campaigning, since it was more appealing than researching the candidates’ stance on pertinent issues. Having fallen victim to the infamous Swift Boat campaign against the Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, I gave my support to the Republican incumbent George W. Bush.

Fast-forwarding to 2008, I was still ignorant about pressing issues like foreign policy and economics, as I was more fascinated by tangible social issues. One such issue involved increasing diversity in political offices, and as such, I endorsed the Democratic candidate Barack Obama.

The 2012 presidential election was the first election that made me more informed on politics. Considering that Obama would win the Democratic nomination easily, I focused more on the Republican primaries, which were quite entertaining. It was clear that a moderate candidate would win, since partisanship would hinder social progress.

The only moderate Republican candidates were Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman. Rick Perry, Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum were too conservative; Newt Gingrich and Herman Cain were too controversial; Buddy Roemer was unknown; and Ron Paul and Gary Johnson were too libertarian.

As expected, Romney won the Republican nomination, but lost to Obama in the general election. This was interesting, as the two candidates were so similar in many ways (e.g. “Obamneycare”). Yet, I still supported Obama for reelection simply because he had a better plan.

Careful analysis on the 2012 primaries may provide some insight into the upcoming 2016 presidential election. It seems that if Hillary Clinton chooses to run, she will likely win the Democratic nomination, due to her popularity and experience.

Moreover, if Clinton wins the nomination, she can likely win the general election, especially if her Republican opponent is controversial or unoriginal. Her victory will also amplify the social change triggered by Obama in diversifying the Executive Office.

Perhaps under a Clinton administration, the U.S.-Germany relations could have more of a personal touch.

However, should a Democrat necessarily win in 2016? Since 1951, when the 22nd Amendment was ratified imposing a two-term limit for presidency, the two main political parties have exchanged roles of the presidency every four to 12 years in mostly regular patterns. This means that even if Clinton (or another Democrat) wins the 2016 election, there is a significant chance that they will be defeated in the 2020 reelection.

Unfortunately, I don’t see a Democrat winning in 2016 election, simply because Obama’s second term accomplishments are quite lackluster. This is observed in the 2014 congressional elections, whereby fellow Democrats distanced themselves from the president, which allowed Republicans to seize the opportunity and take control of Congress.

Despite a massive defeat in the 2014 congressional elections, Obama did enjoy some successes. The American economy prospered thanks to falling oil prices and a shale boom. Obama even improved foreign relations with Cuba, a historical milestone. Alas, Obama is a bit behind in popularity compared to his predecessors Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton. Even then, Reagan’s successor George H. W. Bush served only for one term, while Clinton was succeeded by a Republican in a highly contested 2000 presidential election.

So which Republican can win the White House in 2016? It’s hard to say, since the potential Republican candidates aren’t impressive. In fact, they are too similar to the 2012 Republican candidates. The media outlets are pointing favorable signs towards Jeb Bush, who recently organized an exploratory committee. Is that really the best we can do?

Don’t get me wrong. Jeb Bush is a moderate, like Hillary Clinton. Yet, political dynasties are the last thing we need. If a “Jeb vs Hillary 2016” were to happen, it is likely that Hillary Clinton will defeat Jeb Bush in a similar fashion as Obama defeated Romney back in 2012. Moderate Republicans are simply too similar to Democrats, but the Democrats here are more experienced and have a better plan.

Romney recently expressed his interest in the 2016 election, despite his prior refusal. However, it seems only temporary as he conceded to incessant pressure from his supporters. Even if he were to run, it is rather unlikely that the Republican Party will want to nominate him again and risk losing the general election. Likewise, it’s doubtful that Santorum, Perry and Bachmann will fare well if they were to run again.

Additional possible Republican candidates are Scott Walker, Ben Carson, Bobby Jindal, Mike Huckabee, Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, Chris Christie and Ted Cruz. Huckabee and Cruz are too controversial to succeed in the general election, while Christie risks alienating his own party for being “too left.” More information is needed for Carson, Jindal, Paul and Rubio depending on if they intend to run.

The most interesting potential Republican candidate is Scott Walker. Elected as a Wisconsin governor in 2010, he proposed a budget repair plan that significantly cuts funding for the state’s Medicaid and education budgets, as well as restricting collective bargaining rights for most public employees. Protests erupted in 2011, and voters attempted to recall Walker in 2012.

Instead, the surprising event happened. Walker won the recall election, as well as the 2014 reelection. The Wisconsin Supreme Court also upheld the Walker budget bill.

Aided by the Republican victory in the 2014 congressional elections, Walker likely has a strong chance in winning the 2016 presidential election. Otherwise, the Republican winner may very well be a dark horse.

Badri Karthikeyan is a senior at Drexel University. He can be contacted at op-ed@thetriangle.org.

The post Did Obama hurt Dems chance at 2016 presidency? appeared first on The Triangle.

Paul Krugman has a Nobel Prize in economics. I don’t. He writes for a wide audience in The New York Times. I write for a more select one in The Triangle. But I think I have something to tell Professor Krugman, because it seems to me that he is struggling to understand what should be quite obvious.

In a recent article, “Rock bottom economics,” Krugman confessed to a great puzzlement. The means to stimulate the economy, which continues to “perform” (to use a term economists have apparently borrowed from either the circus ring or a sex manual) at the so-called pre-recession level, are readily at hand.

The Federal Government needs to inject more money into the economy, since it alone can supply both capital and demand. The Federal Reserve Bank needs to raise interest rates, which at the 0.25 percent they have sat at for six years constitutes a liquidity trap, in sync with this. Hey presto: Happy days will be here again.

Krugman doesn’t understand why this hasn’t happened. Virtually all economists, he assures us, agree with his prescription; it is not only orthodox doctrine but it’s real-world tested. It works. It got us out of the Great Depression, and over assorted other bumps since. So, what’s the hang-up?

Krugman thinks economic policymakers and others whom he calls “Very Serious People” have been overly preoccupied with the fear of sparking inflation and reigniting the public debt. As he points out, though, inflation is a manageable concomitant of growth, and deflation — which Europe’s economy as a whole now teeters on — is much worse.

Even if America’s economy skirts that trap, approaching it, like dancing on the edge of a black hole, throttles any hope of a robust recovery. Jobs at best limp back; wages stagnate or decline. And both remain perilously vulnerable.

The point Krugman misses, however, is that the “Very Serious People” aren’t blinkered by their devotion to the memory of Herbert Hoover. They know exactly what they are doing, and why, and for whom. For Krugman, jobs are the number one priority in a recovery, because jobs create demand and demand fuels prosperity.

But a broad-based recovery is not, in fact, to everyone’s maximum advantage. Depression economics can be very, very good for some people, provided it’s rigged the right way. Those people are the rich.

Consider what happens under conditions of full-employment prosperity. Wages rise, because labor is at a premium. So do demands for job benefits and security. Profits rise, too, but they are cramped by inelastic labor costs. One solution for this is outsourcing, which is greatly facilitated by globalization.

Imperialism pioneered this practice; multinational corporations, the successors of empires have perfected it. Another solution, however, is to lower domestic labor costs by making jobs scarce. The way to do this is through what are now called recessions.

These are sometimes planned, as was the 1969 Nixon recession (whose goal was as much political as economic). Most often, they are the consequence of bubbles, as was the case in the crash of 2008.

Mild and short-term recessions don’t amount to much more than a haircut for labor, however painful they may be for those affected by them. To bring wages down for a satisfactory period if not indeed for good, you need something deep and sustained, a full-blown depression.

The United States entered such a depression six years ago. It has been deliberately prolonged with the objective of reducing compensation levels across the board in the manufacturing and service sectors. At the same time, productivity demands have been ratcheted up, most obviously in an ever-lengthening workweek, while job security has virtually disappeared except as a temporary bargaining chip to reduce wages and cut benefits even further.

Pensions, in particular, whose benefits once seemed secure, have been scuttled by strategic private sector bankruptcies, in which states and municipalities have now joined.

None of this could be achieved without a good long bout of hard times, and that is exactly what those at the controls of the American economy have given us. The result was graphically suggested by the recent story in Krugman’s own New York Times of a 49-year-old manufacturing worker who had been earning $18.50 an hour.

That seems like a fairly decent wage, until you reflect that a fast-food worker in Copenhagen earns $20 an hour — the minimum wage in Denmark, and what would be the minimum wage in the U.S. had wages kept pace with labor productivity in the last four decades.

Our worker lost his job, and with it the modest standard of living it had supported. Many such people, if they could get work at all in the past few years, have taken service jobs paying half what manufacturing employment once did.

But, as you may have heard, factory jobs, after decades of disastrous decline, have made a slight comeback of late. Our worker was able to get the equivalent of his old job back — except that it now paid $10.50 an hour. Instead of slinging hash, it’s ingots again for him. The problem is, the wages are still hash.

Depressions have other notable benefits, provided that interest rates are kept low enough for favored customers. Property can be bought for a song, as housing and real estate values plummet. This is called recapitalization. Monopolies form as merger rules are relaxed. Banks and businesses borrow at virtually zero rates from the friendly Fed, while charging premium rates to others and living off the spread without having to add a smidgen of value.

All of this, we’re told, staves off the dragon of inflation. Indeed it does, while facilitating an ever greater transfer of wealth from have-nots to haves. That is why the degree of economic inequality — and, as Colonel Jessep would say, is there any other kind? — has grown steadily during the Obama years.

The rich are making more, lots and lots more; corporate and financial profits are at record highs; international markets are again awash in excess capital. And almost everyone else is making less.

Paul Krugman can’t figure out why hireling bureaucrats and think tank operatives would want to succor the rich at the expense of the rest of us. Learned ignorance can be a contagious thing. And, though Krugman is, I have no doubt, a man of high and serious purpose, he’s probably making out pretty well himself.

Badri Karthikeyan is a senior at Drexel University. She can be contacted at op-ed@thetriangle.org.

The post Technology fosters dependency appeared first on The Triangle.