I've been reading Free To Choose by Milton and Rose Friedman. This book was written in 1979-1980 and it talks about many of the important political and economic issues of that time. Friedman explains things so well and his points are still very relevant. However, as I was reading the chapter "What's Wrong with Our Schools?" something jumped out at me. See if you can pick it out. I'll add emphasis it to give you a hint.

When we first started writing about higher education, we had a good deal of sympathy for the [justification that public tax subsidies for state schools was an investment in the future productivity of members of society]. We no longer do. In the interim, we have tried to induce the people who make this argument to be specific about the alleged social benefits. The answer is almost always simply bad economics. We are told that the nation benefits by having more highly skilled and trained people, that investment in providing such skills is essential for economic growth, that more trained people raise the productivity of the rest of us. These statements are correct. But none is a valid reason for subsidizing higher education. Each statement would be equally correct if made about physical capital (i.e. machines, factory buildings, etc.) yet hardly anyone would conclude that tax money should be used to subsidize the capital investment of General Motors or General Electric. If higher education improves the economic productivity of individuals, they can capture that improvement through higher earnings, so they have a private incentive to get the training. Adam Smith's invisible hand makes their private interest serve the social interest. It is against the social interest to change their private interest by subsidizing schooling. The extra students -- the ones who will only go to college if it is subsidized -- are precisely the ones who judge that the benefits they receive are less than the costs. Otherwise they would be willing to pay the costs themselves.

Wow. Hardly anyone, indeed. Yet, it has happened in the last year and some would argue it was unavoidable because no one in any administrative position (i.e. George W. Bush, John McCain, or Barack Obama) has/had the courage and wisdom to hold back and not "save" failing companies.