The Answer to the Trump/Harvard $3 Billion Question is "Markets"

In early May, Reuters reports, the US government revoked "virtually all" of Harvard University's federal research grants -- nearly $3 billion worth -- because they "no longer effectuate agency priorities."

Now, president Donald Trump says (in a post to his "Truth Social" platform) he's "considering taking Three Billion Dollars of Grant Money away from a very antisemitic Harvard, and giving it to TRADE SCHOOLS all across our land."

Mainstream media coverage of the whole matter seems focused mainly on the reality TV style melodrama -- Trump's specialty -- and on the question of whether he can legally take money appropriated by Congress for Party A to do Thing B and re-appropriate it for Party B to do Thing C.

The melodrama sees to itself, and the legal horse seemingly escaped the barn years ago when Trump unconstitutionally misappropriated Defense Department funds to build his silly "border wall" -- after Congress refused him the money multiple times -- and got away with it instead of facing impeachment and removal for his lawless mishandling of government funds.

What I'm not seeing much discussion of is whether it's a good idea for the federal government to stop writing checks to a well-heeled private university (Harvard has more than $50 billion in the bank) for various things, and instead spend that money on teaching young Americans to weld, build houses, repair cars, etc.

At first blush, the concept does look like sound. America is full of college graduates working behind the counters of convenience stores, in the kitchens of fast food restaurants, wrangling carts at Walmart, etc., all while trying to pay off the crippling debt they incurred studying social work, creative writing, and so forth. Why not equip the NEXT generation with the skills they need to earn better livings, and hopefully make that training affordable?

Here's why:

The government does not and cannot know how many welders, carpenters, and auto mechanics the economy "needs," let alone how many it will "need" a year from now or in 2035 ... just as it has no way of knowing whether Little Bobby should rack up tens of thousands of dollars in student loan debt while hoping to become an elementary school math teacher or university physics researcher.

That's what markets are for. Markets aren't perfect, but they're much better at figuring out what people need, and delivering it less expensively, than governments.

Ending all federal funding of "higher education" institutions would negatively impact my household's finances, at least temporarily (a close family member works in university research), but it would be the right thing to do. It would result in better, cheaper, and more relevant education all around.

Let Harvard be Harvard, and let trade schools be trade schools. Give tax funding to neither.