This is an important point. The first paragraph of this section ("In a narrow sense, yes...") immediately raised concerns in my mind about the argument. I suspect that the reason people from poor families attend college at lower rates than their wealthy counterparts is because they do not have the financial means to do so. While free college would be regressive in a sense, due to the fact that there would b money left on the table from wealthy families who are able and willing to pay for their children to attend college, it would be progressive in the sense that poor families whose children otherwise would not be attending college now will be.

Given what some would consider the skyrocketing costs of attaining a college education, one must consider whether or not it is really necessary for so many to have a college education. College is often billed as the key to a better life and socioeconomic mobility, yet there are numerous professions which pay extremely well (electrician, construction work, etc.) and do not require a college level education. We should move away from pressing a bachelor's degree or higher as essential to financial success in life, and educate more people on the opportunities that lie outside of saddling themselves with debt and going to college.

It will be interesting to see the long term financial ramifications of the coronavirus. Especially in poor and developing nations. I believe that potential debt defaults by these nations could have a ripple effect through the world economy, potentially leading us into a downturn (or worse).

It is really interesting to find this out. I hear a lot in public discourse about women ending to enter STEM and other fields more often, to break the barrier that these fields present as a sort of boys club. It is good to know that women have caught up and are winning in many of these fields.

Why would this help? I feel like this is kind of tacked on here at the end of the paragraph without any supporting evidence. It is an interesting claim, and one that I think is true, but I would like to see it supported.

This line really shows the gravity of the situation. While these companies may for the time being pass the consumer welfare check, it is a bit scary to think that this handful of companies has such control over my life - and that it extends beyond my internet usage to almost all aspects.

Having been a private-label seller on Amazon for over a year, I can say for certain that Amazon has always promoted its own products over those of third-party sellers. While it is frustrating, I do realize that they are technically not doing anything wrong. At the end of the day, it is their platform and they have a right to promote their own products if they so choose. For them, it is a smart business decision.

I remember when I was in elementary school reading books on my iPod via Apple's iBooks. It is crazy to think about the fact that Amazon pressured the government into bringing litigation against Apple in order to ensure that they didn't become a monopoly, but paradoxically the litigation against Apple's "monopoly" served to cement the monopoly already in place, Amazon.

This goes to show that economics can be used to justify and rationalize things that hurt people. This is an extreme example obviously.

This quote goes to show that the hubris of 1950s Fed Chairman Martin negatively affected his work, due to the fact that he dismissed the economists under his supervision.

I think this comment is a classic example of someone in power with excessive hubris. Rather than listening to those below him and either looking deeply into their claims, or at least assigning others to, he doesn't give them the time of day.